People v. Delgado
| Citation | 209 A.D.2d 218,618 N.Y.S.2d 311 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1994 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before ELLERIN, J.P., and ROSS, NARDELLI and TOM, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Kleiman, J.), rendered July 1, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to a 5 year term of probation, unanimously affirmed.
The People are required to announce their readiness for trial within six months of the commencement of a felony criminal action, in this case, within 184 days of August 29, 1991, when the felony complaint was filed, plus any periods of time excludable under CPL 30.30(4) (People v. Sinistaj, 67 N.Y.2d 236, 239, 501 N.Y.S.2d 793, 492 N.E.2d 1209). We agree with defendant that the period from January 9, 1992, when the People presented the case to Grand Jury, the Grand Jury voted an indictment, and the People filed a certificate of readiness and informed defense counsel by telephone that they were ready for trial to January 31, 1992, when defendant was arraigned and the People again announced their readiness for trial, is chargeable to the People, their announcement of readiness on January 9 being "illusory and insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock" since the indictment was not actually filed until the next day, January 10 (People v. England, 84 N.Y.2d 1, 4, 613 N.Y.S.2d 854, 636 N.E.2d 1387; see, also, People v. Benson, 200 A.D.2d 861, 862-863, 606 N.Y.S.2d 828; People v. Afshar, 152 Misc.2d 615, 578 N.Y.S.2d 372). However, we disagree with defendant that the People's subsequent announcement of readiness on January 31 was ineffective, the minutes of those proceedings showing that they had, in fact, announced their readiness for trial on that date, just as they had represented, without contradiction in their response to defendant's speedy trial motion. A negative inference that the People did not announce their readiness on January 31 should not have been drawn merely because they did not supply the minutes of the proceedings conducted on that date to the court with their opposition to defendant's speedy trial motion. Finally, with respect to the period from March 5, 1992, when defendant made an uncontested motion for inspection of the Grand Jury minutes, to May 19, 1992, when the People provided the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Frazier
...filed the instant indictment. The 126 days from October 25, 1995 to February 28, 1996 are charged to the People (People v. Delgado, 209 A.D.2d 218, 219, 618 N.Y.S.2d 311; see also, People v. Osgood, supra, 52 N.Y.2d, at 43-45, 436 N.Y.S.2d 213, 417 N.E.2d On February 29, 1996, the People fi......
-
People v. K.U.
...as an administrative measure to avoid disruption” did not constitute an order excluding defense counsel's colleagues or supervisors. 209 A.D.2d at 218, 618 N.Y.S.2d 313.10 Indeed, defendant has failed to provide this Court with a single case standing for the proposition that all members of ......
-
People v. Harry
...the instant case was reasonable and cannot be deemed to have risen to the level of prosecutorial inaction (see, e.g., People v. Delgado, 209 A.D.2d 218, 618 N.Y.S.2d 311; cf., People v. Harris, 82 N.Y.2d 409, 413-414, 604 N.Y.S.2d 918, 624 N.E.2d 1013). Accordingly, the People were chargeab......
-
People v. Del Valle
...were required to be ready for trial within 184 days of the filing of the felony complaint (see, CPL 30.30[1][a]; People v. Delgado, 209 A.D.2d 218, 219, 618 N.Y.S.2d 311, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 1030, 623 N.Y.S.2d 186, 647 N.E.2d 458), which occurred on August 16, 1994. When they announced, on......