People v. Chambers
| Decision Date | 25 April 1996 |
| Citation | 226 A.D.2d 284,641 N.Y.S.2d 290 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kirk CHAMBERS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mark Dwyer, for Respondent.
Sandra Cobden, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ELLERIN, WALLACH, WILLIAMS and MAZZARELLI, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered February 22, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 1/2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant was not deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial since less than 183 days were chargeable to the People. Some excludable periods are the 29-day adjournment from the decision on defendant's omnibus motion on September 25, 1991 until October 24, 1991, the scheduled hearing and trial date, as a reasonable period for the People to prepare for trial (People v. Greene, 223 A.D.2d 474, 637 N.Y.S.2d 79, 80); the 5-day adjournment from February 14, 1992 until February 19, 1992, as "post-readiness delay attributable to defendant's lack of representation through no fault of the court" (People v. Reid, 214 A.D.2d 396, 397, 625 N.Y.S.2d 171); and the 26-day period from April 23, 1992 to May 19, 1992, during which the arresting officer suffered from a broken ankle, as an exceptional circumstance under CPL 30.30(4)(g) (People v. Celestino, 201 A.D.2d 91, 95, 615 N.Y.S.2d 346). Furthermore, in the absence of any transcript of the May 19, 1992 proceedings, the prosecutor's unrefuted affirmation in opposition to defendant's speedy trial motion provided a sufficient record to support the People's claim that the adjournment to June 15, 1992 was a defense request (id., at 94-95, 615 N.Y.S.2d 346; People v. Nevitt, 209 A.D.2d 341, 619 N.Y.S.2d 6, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 865, 624 N.Y.S.2d 384, 648 N.E.2d 804).
The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied defendant's motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor briefly mentioned in his opening statement that defendant had been returned on a bench warrant after his re-arrest for farebeating. The trial court's prompt, curative instruction that the jury "expunge" the reference to the arrest from their minds was "sufficient to alleviate any possible prejudice to defendant" (People v. Owens, 214 A.D.2d 480, 481, 625 N.Y.S.2d 524, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 799, 632 N.Y.S.2d 513, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. David
...People v. Roberts, 236 A.D.2d 233, 653 N.Y.S.2d 332, lv. denied, 91 N.Y.2d 836, 667 N.Y.S.2d 690, 690 N.E.2d 499; People v. Chambers, 226 A.D.2d 284, 641 N.Y.S.2d 290, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 981, 649 N.Y.S.2d 388, 672 N.E.2d 614). Defendant's claim that in fact the People had the suppression ......
-
People v. Prisco
...case following motion practice]; People v. Roberts 236 A.D.2d 233, 233–234, 653 N.Y.S.2d 332 [1st Dept. 1997]; People v. Chambers, 226 A.D.2d 284, 641 N.Y.S.2d 290 [1st Dept. 1996]; People v. Greene, 223 A.D.2d 474, 637 N.Y.S.2d 79 [1st Dept. 1996] [adjournment after court rendered decision......
-
People v. Vaughn
...record to support the People's claim that defense counsel expressed his consent to the November 12th adjournment date (People v. Chambers, 226 A.D.2d 284, 641 N.Y.S.2d 290, lv. denied, 88 N.Y.2d 981, 649 N.Y.S.2d 388, 672 N.E.2d 614). Further, the People were not chargeable with any time be......
-
People v. McNeil
...(see, People v. Silva, 237 A.D.2d 216, 655 N.Y.S.2d 936, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1100, 660 N.Y.S.2d 394, 682 N.E.2d 995; People v. Chambers, 226 A.D.2d 284, 641 N.Y.S.2d 290, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 981, 649 N.Y.S.2d 388, 672 N.E.2d 614), establish that the adjournment was necessitated by the arr......