People v. Goodman
| Decision Date | 09 May 1974 |
| Citation | 44 A.D.2d 862,355 N.Y.S.2d 217 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ernest L. GOODMAN, Appellant. |
Ralph W. Smith, Jr., Albany County Dist. Atty., Albany (Peter L. Rupert, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Douglas P. Rutnik, Albany County Public Defender, Albany (Joseph M. Brennan, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.
Before STALEY, J.P., and GREENBLOTT, COOKE, KANE and MAIN, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered March 14, 1973, convicting defendant, on his plea of guilty, of the crime of assault second degree.
On June 27, 1972 defendant's wife filed a felony complaint charging her husband with assault in the second degree. Arrested three days later, defendant was arraigned on September 13, 1972 and the matter came on for a preliminary hearing on January 4, 1973. Following a February 1, 1973 indictment for assault second degree, defendant pleaded guilty thereto on March 5, 1973 following denial of an application for dismissal based on a claimed delay in prosecution.
The record indicates that on two occasions defendant withdrew a waiver of a preliminary hearing and that before indictment the felony complaint was referred to Family Court. The length of delay caused by these occurrences, if any, and the responsibility of defendant therefor are not set forth so as to permit intelligent review. (See CPL 30.30, subd. 4; People v. Mintz, 38 A.D.2d 943, 331 N.Y.S.2d 580; People v. Townsend, 38 A.D.2d 569, 328 N.Y.S.2d 333.)
Determination of appeal withheld and case remitted to the County Court, Albany County, for hearing and determination as to whether or not there were any periods of delay to be excluded from the time within which the People should have been ready for trial.
Upon arraignment, after indictment for the crime of assault in the second degree, defendant moved for dismissal in accordance with subdivision 1(a) of section 30.30 of the Criminal Procedure Law, contending that the People were obviously not ready for trial within six months, in that he was not indicted until seven months after the commencement of the action. The motion was denied. Defendant claims this was error, and we agree.
It is clear and uncontested that the criminal action was commenced on June 30, 1972 and that the defendant was indicted on February 1, 1973. Delay of this duration, if unexplained, is contrary to the requirements of subdivision 1(a) of section 30.30 of the Criminal Procedure Law and contrary to the spirit and purpose of recent significant legislation aimed at removing uncertainty and inconsistency from the prior law dealing with speedy trials while, at the same time, not unduly burdening either the People or the defendant (see Supplementary Practice Commentary by Richard Denzer, McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 11A, pp. 17--19, under Criminal Procedure Law, 30.30).
Subdivision 1(a) of section 30.30 of the Criminal Procedure Law requires the dismissal of an indictment where, in the absence of a showing of good cause, the People are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rivera
...the reason for the delay. Dismissal is appropriate only if the court determines that the delay is not justified (see People v. Goodman, 44 A.D.2d 862, 355 N.Y.S.2d 217). When the delay is long enough the charges may be dismissed whether or not the defendant has shown prejudice (People v. Si......
-
People v. Goodman
...the time when he took the plea should be excluded from the period within which the People were required to be ready for trial (44 A.D.2d 862, 355 N.Y.S.2d 217). Justices Kane and Main, who dissented, would have dismissed the indictment at that Testimony at the hearing established that the w......
-
People v. Blas
...693; People v. Laskowski, 72 Misc.2d 580, 340 N.Y.S.2d 787; People v. Lopez, 73 Misc.2d 878, 342 N.Y.S.2d 984, the People and Goodman, 44 A.D.2d 862, 355 N.Y.S.2d 217). In People v. Collins, Supra, the court readily acknowledged that an unreasonable delay might in some cases be a denial of ......
-
People v. Burrows
...in which the People should have been ready (see People v. McLaurin, 38 N.Y.2d 123, 378 N.Y.S.2d 692, 341 N.E.2d 250; People v. Goodman, 44 A.D.2d 862, 355 N.Y.S.2d 217). Defendant's second contention relates to the denial of his motion to suppress the identification testimony. The display o......