People v. Mastrangelo

• Decision Date: 16 April 1984
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Rocco MASTRANGELO, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 572

474 N.Y.S.2d 572

100 A.D.2d 914

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Rocco MASTRANGELO, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

April 16, 1984.

McKenna & Schneier, Valley Stream (Alan Schneier, Valley Stream, of counsel), for appellant.

Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Joseph M. Latino and Gerald D. Reilly, White Plains, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BROWN, J.P., and NIEHOFF, RUBIN and EIBER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered February 8, 1983, convicting him of two counts each of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review, inter alia, the denial, after a hearing, of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was denied the right to a speedy trial.

Judgment affirmed.

We initially note that, as the hearing court found, except for a two-day adjournment, the People were at all times ready for trial from September 18, 1980, or within four months after the felony complaint was filed on May 28, 1980. Thus, once the People effectively announced their readiness for trial "the operational effect of CPL 30.30 was exhausted" (People v. Giordano, 56 N.Y.2d 524, 449 N.Y.S.2d 955, 434 N.E.2d 1333; People v. Moorehead, 61 N.Y.2d ---, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, --- N.E.2d --- [Feb. 21, 1984]; People v. Hamilton, 46 N.Y.2d 932, 933, 415 N.Y.S.2d 208, 388 N.E.2d 345; People v. Josefson, App.Div., 473 N.Y.S.2d 594 [2d Dept., March 26, 1984] ). Turning next to defendant's argument that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, we consider the factors that should be examined in balancing the merits of such a claim (People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445-447, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303; People v. Williams, 84 A.D.2d 823, 444 N.Y.S.2d 116). Although more than two years and seven months elapsed from the date the felony complaint was filed to the date of the trial, we note that much of this time was attributable to defendant. We further note that defendant failed to sufficiently show prejudice for purposes of establishing a violation of his right to a speedy trial under CPL 30.20 (see People v. Watts, 86 A.D.2d 964, 965, 448 N.Y.S.2d 299; People v. Williams, supra). Defendant's incarceration during part of the delay appears to be due to his failure to appear in court during the time he was released on bail.

Therefore, the delay from the...