People v. Littles
| Decision Date | 01 December 1992 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Joseph LITTLES, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and WALLACH, KUPFERMAN and ROSS, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George F. Roberts, J.), entered January 9, 1992, which dismissed the indictment on the ground that defendant had been denied his right to a speedy trial, unanimously reversed, on the law, the indictment reinstated, and the matter remanded without prejudice to a motion on formal papers by defendant pursuant to CPL 30.30 not later than 30 days from the date of this order, with defendant's bail status continued.
Under the circumstances presented here it was error for Criminal Term, sua sponte, to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds in disregard of CPL 210.45(1), which requires that such a motion "must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the [P]eople" (see, People v. Sbarra, 55 A.D.2d 545, 389 N.Y.S.2d 592; see also, People v. Rodriguez, 45 A.D.2d 41, 356 N.Y.S.2d 60; People v. Bess, 73 A.D.2d 971, 424 N.Y.S.2d 249). The basic purpose of this requirement is to provide for a "full development of the issues and an adequate opportunity for the People to contest the specific grounds asserted for dismissal" (People v. Vega, 80 A.D.2d 867, 436 N.Y.S.2d 748).
Even the sparse record provided on this appeal indicates the presence of such factual issues as defendant's use of a false name after his failure to appear for arraignment on the indictment, and whether the People acted with due diligence in compelling his appearance, each of which may require a hearing if defendant's application is pursued.
We have considered defendant's argument that the People can waive the formalities of CPL 210.45, citing People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 512 N.Y.S.2d 652, 504 N.E.2d 1079 and People v. Singleton, 42 N.Y.2d 466, 398 N.Y.S.2d 871, 368 N.E.2d 1237. Those decisions involved extensive oral argument upon fully clarified issues presented with adequate notice to the People. They stand in stark contrast to the situation presented here, where apart from an oral announcement from the Bench that the court was considering a speedy trial dismissal, the grounds for such a ruling were neither raised by defendant nor clarified by the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dunlap
... ... This failure to follow the procedure[216 A.D.2d 217] set forth in the law was clearly error and warrants reversal in and of itself. It cannot be said, in light of the prosecutor's specific objection, that the People "waiv[ed] the formalities of CPL 210.45" (People v. Littles, 188 A.D.2d 255, 256, 591 N.Y.S.2d 2, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 842, 595 N.Y.S.2d 742, 611 N.E.2d 781) ... If we were to reach the merits of the dismissal motion, we would note that the record is devoid of any mention whatsoever of the various factors enumerated in CPL 210.40 that a ... ...
-
People v. Knight
...an intelligent response" ( People v. Mezon, 80 N.Y.2d 155, 160, 589 N.Y.S.2d 838, 603 N.E.2d 943 [1992] ; see also People v. Littles, 188 A.D.2d 255, 256, 591 N.Y.S.2d 2 [1992] ; People v. Doxey, 46 Misc.3d 144[A], 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 50193[U], 2015 WL 824636 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th......
-
People v. Hansel
... ... requirement that the motion be made in writing is waived by the People should they fail to object to the improper procedure (see, People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 512 N.Y.S.2d 652, 504 N.E.2d 1079). As was pointed out in People v. Littles, 188 A.D.2d 255, 591 N.Y.S.2d 2, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 842, 595 N.Y.S.2d 742, 611 N.E.2d 781, however, the Jennings case involved extensive oral argument upon fully clarified issues presented with adequate notice to the People. Further, it is defendants' initial burden to show a period of delay in ... ...
- People v. Miller