People v. Crogan
| Decision Date | 13 March 1997 |
| Citation | 237 A.D.2d 745,655 N.Y.S.2d 163 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John CROGAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Meyer & Spencer (James T. Meyer, of counsel), Hawthorne, for appellant.
Mary O. Donohue, District Attorney (Bruce E. Knoll, of counsel), Troy, for respondent.
Before CARDONA, P.J., and MIKOLL, CREW, YESAWICH and SPAIN, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselear County (McGrath, J.), rendered March 10, 1995, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the second degree (three counts) and petit larceny.
This criminal proceeding was commenced against defendant when he was arrested on November 24, 1993. Thereafter, on May 27, 1994, an indictment was filed charging defendant with three counts of burglary in the second degree and one count of petit larceny. On May 28, 1994 the People filed their statement of readiness for trial. Defendant later moved pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the basis that his speedy trial rights were violated; following a hearing, County Court denied the motion. Defendant was subsequently convicted after a jury trial of the crimes charged in the indictment. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. In denying defendant's motion, County Court found that the preindictment delay between May 7, 1994 and May 23, 1994 was excludable because it was attributable to defendant's consideration of a plea offer which had been conveyed by the People. After deducting this time period from the time between the commencement of the criminal proceeding and the date the People declared their readiness for trial, County Court concluded that the People were responsible for a total delay of 167 days and that defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated. Defendant contends that this was error inasmuch as he did not consent to a waiver of his speedy trial rights in connection with the plea offer.
The time during which plea negotiations are pending is excludable from the time period for conducting a speedy trial as long as the defendant requests or acquiesces in the delay of the proceedings (see, People v. Mabb, 225 A.D.2d 813, 638 N.Y.S.2d 837; People v. Wiggins, 197 A.D.2d 802, 804, 603 N.Y.S.2d 81; People v. Lo Pizzo, 151 A.D.2d 614, 615, 543 N.Y.S.2d 88, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 772, 551 N.Y.S.2d 914, 551 N.E.2d 115). Acquiescence in the delay may be inferred from defense counsel's consent to the delay on behalf of the defendant (see, People v. Rodriguez, 212 A.D.2d 368, 369, 622 N.Y.S.2d 243, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 913, 627 N.Y.S.2d 336, 650 N.E.2d 1338). In the case at hand, a plea offer was made during a conference...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...A.D.2d 802, 804, 603 N.Y.S.2d 81 [1993];People v. Moulton, 172 A.D.2d at 1001–1002, 569 N.Y.S.2d 220;compare People v. Crogan, 237 A.D.2d 745, 745–746, 655 N.Y.S.2d 163 [1997],lv. denied90 N.Y.2d 857, 661 N.Y.S.2d 183, 683 N.E.2d 1057 [1997] ), the People did not establish that they were re......
-
People v. Dougal
...was not chargeable to the prosecution and that the attorney who executed the waiver had the authority to do so (see, People v. Crogan, 237 A.D.2d 745, 655 N.Y.S.2d 163, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 857, 661 N.Y.S.2d 183, 683 N.E.2d 1057), we decline further We further find no error in Supreme Court......
-
People v. Abdullah
...31, 2011 is properly excludable due to defendant's consideration of the plea offer. However, the People's reliance upon People v. Crogan (237 A.D.2d 745 (1997)) in this regard is misplaced. Although time during plea negotiations is excludable for speedy trial purposes, it is so only if the ......
-
People v. Rose
...right to a speedy trial was not violated (see People v. Henderson, 248 A.D.2d 485; People v. Chu Zhu, 245 A.D.2d 296; People v. Crogan, 237 A.D.2d 745). Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. It is well settled that "[i]n eval......