People v. Green
| Decision Date | 25 April 1988 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Gerald GREEN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Lisa Margaret Smith and Ann Bordley, of counsel), for appellant.
Winston Lee, New York City, for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BROWN, EIBER and SULLIVAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated October 9, 1986, which, after a hearing, granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.20 and 30.30.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed.
We must decide if an 18-month delay from the People's filing of a notice of appeal to the perfection of the appeal was reasonable. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that that delay was not reasonable.
The defendant was arrested on February 18, 1982, for criminal possession of a weapon, and by Indictment No. 1398/82 he was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The People announced their readiness to try the case at the arraignment of the defendant on the indictment. A hearing on the suppression of the gun was held on March 7, 1984, and the gun was suppressed. On April 16, 1984, the People simultaneously served a notice of appeal and a statement pursuant to CPL 450.50 in which they indicated they could not successfully prosecute the indictment without the suppressed evidence.
We are not concerned with any period of delay prior to the filing of the notice of appeal because the People announced that they were ready for trial on the defendant's arraignment on the indictment and the defendant did not object to any delay prior to that announcement of readiness (see, CPL 30.30[4][b]; People v. Berkowitz, 50 N.Y.2d 333, 348, 428 N.Y.S.2d 927, 406 N.E.2d 783; People v. Gaggi, 104 A.D.2d 422, 423, 478 N.Y.S.2d 732, appeal dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 636, 491 N.Y.S.2d 159, 480 N.E.2d 748, rearg. denied 65 N.Y.2d 1054, 494 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 484 N.E.2d 1055). What is involved in this case is postreadiness delay by the People ( see, People v. Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529, 498 N.Y.S.2d 119, 488 N.E.2d 1231).
When the notice of appeal from the suppression order was served, there was an internal policy of the District Attorney's office not to assign People's appeals to an appeals Assistant District Attorney unless there was a "particularly unusual reason". This policy was part of an overall policy of giving priority to the preparation of respondents' briefs where the defendant was incarcerated. The claimed justification for the policy was a large, unexpected increase in the Appeals Bureau's workload during the 1983-1984 appellate year. It was contended that even with the enlistment of assistants from other bureaus, there were not enough personnel to perfect People's appeals.
Pursuant to that policy of the District Attorney's office, the People's appeal in this case was not assigned to an Assistant District Attorney until November 15, 1984, seven months after the notice of appeal was served. At that time, this appeal was first assigned to an Assistant District Attorney in the Appeals Bureau after inquiries were made by the Administrati Judge of Supreme Court, Kings County as to the status of the case. The brief was completed in July 1985 and filed October 17, 1985.
On October 29, 1985, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30. In response, the People relied on CPL 30.30(4)(a) which in pertinent part provides "In computing the time within which the people must be ready for trial * * * the following periods must be excluded: (a) a reasonable period of delay resulting from * * * appeals".
At the hearing on the motion, the People outlined the reasons and application of their policy in regard to People's appeals and how that policy was applied in this case. An ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McIntosh
...not be permitted to compromise the constitutional and statutory rights of an accused to a speedy trial (see generally, People v. Green, 139 A.D.2d 760, 527 N.Y.S.2d 509). Hence, in such instances, the People will be held accountable for that period of delay between the taking of the unneces......
-
People v. Aaron
...158 A.D.2d 378, 392, 551 N.Y.S.2d 503 [dissenting opn.], revd. 76 N.Y.2d 1006, 565 N.Y.S.2d 751, 566 N.E.2d 1156; cf., People v. Green, 139 A.D.2d 760, 527 N.Y.S.2d 509). As a matter of law, the People's perfection of their prior appeal within the time fixed by the rules of this court const......
-
People v. Scott
...the appeal then the People are chargeable with said delay. People v. Holmes, 206 A.D.2d 542, 615 N.Y.S.2d 52; People v. Green, 139 A.D.2d 760, 527 N.Y.S.2d 509. The defendant contends that the People took an extraordinary period of time to perfect the appeal and characterizes the delay by t......
- People v. Furman