People v. Lopez
| Decision Date | 24 April 1989 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Manuel LOPEZ, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Andrew Zwerling, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles S. Kelton, Forest Hills, for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and LAWRENCE, KOOPER and SULLIVAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), dated June 29, 1988, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(a).
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.
The defendant was arrested on December 19, 1987, and arraigned on December 21, 1987. After the defendant was indicted on April 5, 1988, the Court Clerk, pursuant to the practice in Queens County, scheduled his arraignment on the indictment for May 24, 1988. However, the defendant was not produced on that date and he was subsequently arraigned on June 20, 1988.
On June 29, 1988, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was denied a speedy trial within the meaning of CPL 30.30. The defendant argued that the People should be charged with 192 days of inexcusable delay, i.e., from December 19, 1987, until June 29, 1988, which exceeded the allowable six-calendar-month statutory limitation in this case.
In opposition to the motion, the People argued that the entire period of time between the filing of the indictment, i.e., April 5, 1988, and the first scheduled date for arraignment, i.e., May 24, 1988, was excludable and not chargeable to them, since that period was set by the Court Clerk, rather than the People. However, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the indictment.
We disagree with the Supreme Court's determination.
Even assuming arguendo that the Court Clerk's act of scheduling an arraignment on an indictment can be imputed to the People (but see, People v. Walton, 136 Misc.2d 539, 518 N.Y.S.2d 930), the entire period from April 5, 1988, until May 24, 1988, cannot be charged to the People. It has been held by this court that the People are entitled to a reasonable period in which to arrange the defendant's arraignment on an indictment (see, People v. Baker, 131...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Conrad
...time for the People to arrange the defendant's arraignments (see, People v. Hudson, 162 A.D.2d 617, 556 N.Y.S.2d 942; People v. Lopez, 149 A.D.2d 735, 736, 540 N.Y.S.2d 518; People v. Baker, 131 A.D.2d 491, 492, 516 N.Y.S.2d 106), the total time chargeable to the People, including the perio......
-
People v. Palacios
...defendant's] arraignment on the indictment' " (People v. Palacios, 173 A.D.2d 745, 745-746, 570 N.Y.S.2d 246, quoting People v. Lopez, 149 A.D.2d 735, 540 N.Y.S.2d 518). In reversing this court's order determining this issue, the Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that the facts of this cas......
-
People v. Johnson
...a reasonable period of time following the filing of the indictment to bring about the defendant's arraignment (see, People v. Lopez, 149 A.D.2d 735, 736, 540 N.Y.S.2d 518), and therefore, the 14 day period constitutes excusable We would also note that none of the delays, after the People an......
-
People v. Palacios
... ... We disagree with the Supreme Court's determination ... It is undisputed that "the court clerk, pursuant to the [173 A.D.2d 746] practice in Queens County, scheduled [the defendant's] arraignment on the indictment"(People v. Lopez, 149 ... A.D.2d 735, 540 N.Y.S.2d 518). In People v. Rivera, 160 A.D.2d 234, 553 N.Y.S.2d 682, the Appellate Division, First Department, excluded the entire period between indictment and arraignment on the ground that: ... "Of those periods in issue herein, we first consider the 22-day period ... ...