People v. Cooper
Decision Date | 27 June 1997 |
Citation | 683 N.E.2d 11,660 N.Y.S.2d 546,90 N.Y.2d 292 |
Parties | , 683 N.E.2d 11 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Andrew COOPER, Appellant. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
On July 24, 1992, the People filed a misdemeanor complaint in Criminal Court charging defendant with two counts of driving while intoxicated (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2]; § 1192[3] ). Upon learning from defendant's criminal history report that he had been convicted in 1985 for driving while intoxicated, the People served notice on defendant at his arraignment of their intention to submit felony charges to a Grand Jury (see, CPL 170.20). The People subsequently replaced the misdemeanor complaint with an instrument charging defendant with two felony counts of driving while intoxicated (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3]; § 1193[1][c] ). Defendant was thereafter indicted and, after a jury trial, convicted of driving while intoxicated as a felony. Defendant was sentenced to five years' probation, the conditions of which included paying a $1,000 fine, entering an alcohol treatment program, selling his car, and surrendering his license for a period of 10 years.
Defendant's sole argument on this appeal is that the People violated the speedy trial statute (see, CPL 30.30[1] ). Specifically, defendant contends that the People were obligated to announce their readiness for trial within 90 days of the action's commencement because the action was commenced by the filing of a misdemeanor complaint, notwithstanding the action's subsequent conversion to a felony case. The People acknowledge that they failed to answer ready within 90 days of the action's commencement, but argue that they complied with the speedy trial statute by answering ready within the six-month period applicable to felony prosecutions. For the following reasons, we agree with the People.
Initially, and most importantly, the statutory language supports the People's contention that they had six months to prepare for the felony trial, even though the action was commenced by the filing of a misdemeanor complaint. According to the speedy trial statute, the People must answer ready for trial within six months of "the commencement of a criminal action wherein a defendant is accused of * * * a felony" (CPL § 30.30[1][a] ) or within 90 days of "the commencement of a criminal action wherein a defendant is accused of * * * a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months" (CPL § 30.30[1][b] ). As the Appellate Division aptly observed, (People v. Cooper, 219 A.D.2d 426, 430, 643 N.Y.S.2d 532). When the People in this case filed a felony instrument superseding the misdemeanor complaint, defendant was "accused of * * * a felony" and the People were then entitled to the full six-month period (measured from the action's July 24th commencement) to prepare for the felony trial (see, CPL § 1.20[16], [17] ).
We reject defendant's argument that a contrary holding is dictated by our decision in People v. Tychanski, 78 N.Y.2d 909, 573 N.Y.S.2d 454, 577 N.E.2d 1046...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Wright
...with felonies, the People had six months to announce that they were ready for trial ( see CPL 30.30[1][a]; People v. Cooper, 90 N.Y.2d 292, 294, 660 N.Y.S.2d 546, 683 N.E.2d 11 [1997] ). As for defendant's claim that the failure to make this motion constituted ineffective assistance of coun......
-
People v. Bastian
...38 A.D.3d 393, 833 N.Y.S.2d 20, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 873, 842 N.Y.S.2d 785, 874 N.E.2d 752; see generally People v. Cooper, 90 N.Y.2d 292, 294, 660 N.Y.S.2d 546, 683 N.E.2d 11). We reject the further contention of defendant concerning constitutional double jeopardy violations with respect to......
-
Lewis v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.
...1 Defendant relies upon Siler v. 146 Montague Associates, 228 A.D.2d 33, 652 N.Y.S.2d 315 (2nd Dept.1997); appeal dism'd, 90 N.Y.2d 292, 660 N.Y.S.2d 546, 683 N.E.2d 11, which held that in a negligence action based upon premises security, a 'merely negligent' tortfeasor can seek to limit it......
-
People v. Graham
...of crime with which the defendant is ultimately accused' and for which he is prosecuted,” citing an earlier People v. Cooper, 90 N.Y.2d 292, 660 N.Y.S.2d 546, 683 N.E.2d 11 (1997). The later Cooper opinion disavowed this approach, stating that “the Court did not so hold ... such an interpre......