People v. Cephas
| Decision Date | 26 September 1994 |
| Citation | 207 A.D.2d 903,616 N.Y.S.2d 668 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Douglas CEPHAS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Russell C. Morea, Kew Gardens, for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Tammy J. Smiley, and Gregory C. Pavlides, of counsel), for respondent.
Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and MILLER, RITTER and HART, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), rendered May 20, 1991, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant moved pursuant to CPL 30.30(4)(c) to dismiss the charges against him on the ground that the People failed to bring the case to trial within 180 days. He contends that since he failed to appear in the court for the first day of trial, necessitating the issuance of a bench warrant, the prosecution had the burden of showing that they had exercised due diligence in locating him during the period he absented himself from the proceedings, in order to avoid dismissal on speedy trial grounds. However, once the People have announced their readiness for trial, there is no requirement that they exercise due diligence to locate the defendant when he has voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings, since the People did not contribute to the delays, and thus, the failure to proceed to trial had no bearing on the People's readiness (see, People v. McKenna, 76 N.Y.2d 59, 64, 556 N.Y.S.2d 514, 555 N.E.2d 911; see also, People v. Cropper, 202 A.D.2d 603, 609 N.Y.S.2d 288; People v. Myers, 171 A.D.2d 148, 151, 575 N.Y.S.2d 152). The record indicates that the prosecution first announced their readiness for trial on October 10, 1990, and that the defendant voluntarily absented himself on January 9, 1991. Under the circumstances, the prosecution was not required to justify the delay in bringing the matter to trial, and the court correctly denied the defendant's motion.
Further, the court's statements during the defense counsel's questioning and during proceedings outside the presence of the jury were proper. During both the examinations and argument on motions, the defense counsel repeatedly challenged the court's ruling, provoking the court's comments that either the defense counsel control her behavior or she would be held in contempt. Thus, the court's comments were the result of the defense counsel's tactics and did not constitute reversible error (see, People v. Gonzalez, 38 N.Y.2d 208, 379 N.Y.S.2d 397, 341 N.E.2d 822; see also, People v. Meade, 198 A.D.2d 307, 603 N.Y.S.2d 876).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the defendant failed to sustain his burden of showing that the police officers who did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Frazier
...to insure a speedy trial (see, People v. Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529, 535, 498 N.Y.S.2d 119, 488 N.E.2d 1231; see also, People v. Cephas, 207 A.D.2d 903, 904, 616 N.Y.S.2d 668). The People's service of their readiness notice on Criminal Court counsel fulfilled their obligation of promptly notif......
-
People v. Ramirez
...v. Williams, 229 A.D.2d 603, 646 N.Y.S.2d 142 (1996), app. denied 89 N.Y.2d 931, 654 N.Y.S.2d 734, 677 N.E.2d 306; People v. Cephas, 207 A.D.2d 903, 616 N.Y.S.2d 668 (1994); People v. Cropper, 202 A.D.2d 603, 609 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1994), app. denied 84 N.Y.2d 824, 617 N.Y.S.2d 144, 641 N.E.2d 1......
-
People v. Williams
...when he has voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings, since the People did not contribute to the delays" (People v. Cephas, 207 A.D.2d 903, 616 N.Y.S.2d 668; see also, People v. McKenna, 76 N.Y.2d 59, 556 N.Y.S.2d 514, 555 N.E.2d 911; People v. Cropper, 202 A.D.2d 603, 609 N.Y.S.2d......
-
People v. Dempsey
...tactics and did not constitute error (see, People v. Gonzalez, 38 N.Y.2d 208, 379 N.Y.S.2d 397, 341 N.E.2d 822; People v. Cephas, 207 A.D.2d 903, 616 N.Y.S.2d 668; People v. Meade, 198 A.D.2d 307, 603 N.Y.S.2d The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review......