People v. Geller
| Decision Date | 13 November 1978 |
| Citation | 409 N.Y.S.2d 791,65 A.D.2d 774 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Michael Anthony GELLER, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (William Twaddle and Florence M. Sullivan, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.
William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Arthur T. Cambouris, New York City, of counsel, Marilyn A. Kneeland, New York City, on brief), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P. J., and MARTUSCELLO, RABIN, GULOTTA, JJ.
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 5, 1976, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment.
Order reversed, on the law, and indictment reinstated.
On September 30, 1974 defendant was arrested and placed in the custody of Federal authorities for allegedly committing a bank robbery. Plea negotiations were commenced, but as of April 17, 1975 no agreement had been reached. On that date defendant appeared in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and his attorney indicated that she intended to raise the Federal six-month speedy trial rule. (The delay in prosecution appears to have occurred because the assistants handling the case at the United States Attorney's office left said office.) No further action was taken on that date other than to mark the case off the calendar. Subsequently, the assistant United States Attorney in charge of the case contacted the Kings County District Attorney's office to inquire if it would be interested in prosecuting the defendant. The District Attorney's office apparently decided that it would be and, in an indictment filed June 13, 1975, defendant was charged with robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree.
Defendant was not arrested on these charges until September 23, 1975, a delay that could have been avoided by more diligent efforts to locate him. Defendant moved, at Criminal Term, to dismiss the indictment based on collateral estoppel, the interest of justice and the denial of his right to a speedy trial. We hold that these grounds do not warrant the dismissal of the indictment.
The basis of dismissing the indictment on the ground of collateral estoppel is that the Federal charges would have been dismissed with prejudice for violation of the speedy trial rule, thereby barring the State prosecution. The difficulty with this approach is that the issues have not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Boynton
...injustice upon this defendant. The dismissal of the rape count in the absence of such a showing was clearly improper (cf. People v. Geller, App.Div., 409 N.Y.S.2d 791 (2d Dept., dec. Nov. 13, 1978); People v. Kwok Ming Chan, 45 A.D.2d 613, 360 N.Y.S.2d Acquittal, like conviction, requires a......
-
People v. McKenzie
...434 N.E.2d 245; People v. Rosado, 166 A.D.2d 544, 560 N.Y.S.2d 825; People v. Moore, 159 A.D.2d 521, 552 N.Y.S.2d 389; People v. Geller, 65 A.D.2d 774, 409 N.Y.S.2d 791). There being no other issue reviewable on this appeal, in light of the defendant's plea of guilty and his waiver of his r......