People v. Gates
| Decision Date | 24 May 1979 |
| Citation | 70 A.D.2d 734,416 N.Y.S.2d 870 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Arthur R. GATES, Jr., et al., Respondents, and Aaron W. Gibbons, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Charles J. Wilcox, Rensselaer County Dist. Atty., Troy (Mark B. Harris, Troy, of counsel) for appellant.
John Patterson, Troy, for respondent Arthur R. Gates, Jr.
Jerome K. Frost, Troy, for respondent Lawrence J. Gates.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and GREENBLOTT, KANE, STALEY, and MIKOLL, JJ.
Appeals (1) from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County, entered July 11, 1978, which granted defendant Lawrence J. Gates' motion to dismiss the indictment against him and (2) from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County, entered August 24, 1978, which granted defendant Arthur R. Gates, Jr.'s motion to dismiss the indictment against him.
Following an armed robbery in Hoosick Falls, New York, on February 7, 1977, defendants were arrested the same day and charged with having committed robbery. They were subsequently indicted for the crime of robbery in the first degree. * On April 14, 1977 respondent Lawrence Gates served a notice of motion seeking, Inter alia, an order suppressing any statements made and all property seized. Respondent Arthur Gates joined in this motion by letter dated May 21, 1977. A suppression hearing was held before the Honorable Con G. Cholakis, County Court Judge, on May 26, 1977 and decision was reserved. Lawrence Gates made another motion on June 7, 1977 before Judge Cholakis which Arthur Gates later joined, to dismiss the indictment due to the insufficiency of the Grand Jury minutes. By order entered December 6, 1977, Judge Cholakis denied this motion to dismiss.
However, when Judge Cholakis left his position as County Court Judge and took office as a Supreme Court Justice on January 1, 1978, the defendants' motion to suppress had not been decided. Lawrence Gates then sought to dismiss the indictment for failure to comply with the Criminal Procedure Law's six-month trial limitation (CPL 30.30, subd. 1) by a motion which was returnable on January 17, 1978. Arthur Gates attempted to join in this motion by letter dated January 7, 1978. By order entered July 11, 1978, the Honorable F. Warren Travers, Acting County Court Judge, granted the motion to dismiss as to Lawrence Gates, but found that the letter of Arthur Gates was insufficient to join in the motion. Arthur Gates then brought his own motion to dismiss, pursuant to CPL 30.30 (subd. 1), which was argued before the new County Court Judge, the Honorable M. Andrew Dwyer, Jr. Judge Dwyer granted Arthur Gates' motion and dismissed the indictment against him by order entered August 24, 1978. The People now appeal from the orders dismissing the indictments against Arthur and Lawrence Gates.
It was error for the County Court to dismiss the indictments on the basis of CPL 30.30. This section requires the People to be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of a criminal action wherein a defendant is accused of a felony. There are, however, certain periods of time which are excluded from the computation of the six-month time period, including the periods resulting from pretrial motions and the time during which such proceedings are under consideration by the court (CPLR 30.30, subd. 4, par. (a)). Despite the People's concession in their brief that the delay caused by the County Court in deciding the motions is attributable to the People, we are not bound by such a concession where it is contrary to law. Delay caused by the trial court is not imputed to the People for purposes of determining whether or not a defendant was granted a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 (People v. Conrad, 44 N.Y.2d 863, 407 N.Y.S.2d 694, 379 N.E.2d 220).
In the instant case, the criminal action was commenced against the defendants on February 7, 1977 when the felony complaint was filed subsequent to their arrest and arraignment (People v. Kent, 87 Misc.2d 69, 384 N.Y.S.2d 936; see People v. Sturgis, 38 N.Y.2d 625, 381 N.Y.S.2d 860, 345 N.E.2d 331). In the case against Lawrence Gates, the People can only be charged with the delay from February 7, 1977 to April 14, 1977, when the motion to suppress was made. In the case against Arthur Gates, the People...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brown
...conceded in the trial court that it was chargeable to them (see, People v. Collado, 125 A.D.2d 584, 509 N.Y.S.2d 839; People v. Gates, 70 A.D.2d 734, 416 N.Y.S.2d 870), because that adjournment was granted so the People could answer the defendant's omnibus The 104-day delay from August 17, ......
-
People v. Spencer
...of the trial court is not chargeable to the People (People v. Conrad, 44 N.Y.2d 863, 407 N.Y.S.2d 694, 379 N.E.2d 220; People v. Gates, 70 A.D.2d 734, 416 N.Y.S.2d 870). Accordingly, the delay complained of is not chargeable to the People, and defendants were not denied a speedy We would af......
-
People v. Lawson
...period from that date until the court's decision on January 7, 1981 is not attributable to the People (CPL 30.30(4)[d]; People v. Gates, 70 A.D.2d 734, 416 N.Y.S.2d 870), and the prosecution would be timely even if the January 8, 1981 date is accepted as the date of readiness. We believe, h......
-
People v. Thomas
...by the position originally taken by the prosecution (see, e.g., People v. Brown, 207 A.D.2d 556, 557, 616 N.Y.S.2d 389; People v. Gates, 70 A.D.2d 734, 416 N.Y.S.2d 870). In addition, we find no merit to the defendant's contention that the People should be charged with the six days from Dec......