People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 06 July 1993 |
| Parties | , 619 N.E.2d 403 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John SMITH, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 188 A.D.2d 319, 591 N.Y.S.2d 765, should be affirmed.
Under CPL 30.30(1)(a), the People have six months, or in this case 181 days, to be ready for trial, exclusive of any periods of time properly chargeable to the defense. The question before us is whether the People should be charged with time beyond the dates to which they requested adjournments. The People contend that an adjournment which is extended because the defense rejects the original date suggested by the People should be, in part, excludable from the time chargeable to them. This argument is without merit.
In People v. Kendzia, 64 N.Y.2d 331, 486 N.Y.S.2d 888, 476 N.E.2d 287, we stated that " 'ready for trial' [pursuant to] CPL 30.30(1) encompasses two necessary elements" (id., at 337, 486 N.Y.S.2d 888, 476 N.E.2d 287). First, the People must communicate their readiness on the trial court's record, either by a statement of readiness by the prosecutor in open court or through a written notice of readiness sent by the prosecutor to defense counsel and the appropriate court clerk (see, id.). Secondly, the prosecutor must in fact be ready to proceed at that time (see, id.). Delays caused by the court, such as delays in arraignment or other court congestion, do not excuse the People from timely declaring their readiness for trial (see, People v. Correa, 77 N.Y.2d 930, 931, 569 N.Y.S.2d 601, 572 N.E.2d 42; People v. Brothers, 50 N.Y.2d 413, 417, 429 N.Y.S.2d 558, 407 N.E.2d 405). The People can avoid being charged with prereadiness delay occasioned by court scheduling by filing a certificate of readiness (see, People v. Tavarez, 147 A.D.2d 355, 356, 537 N.Y.S.2d 517, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 1022, 541 N.Y.S.2d 777, 539 N.E.2d 605). Inasmuch as the People never stated their readiness for the record in this case, the People should be charged with the entirety of the adjournment periods (see, People v. Kendzia, supra). The rule we restate today, which requires the prosecution to file a certificate of readiness or make a statement of readiness in open court, objectively establishes the date on which they can proceed and eliminates the need for a court to determine to whom adjournment delays should be charged.
The People's contention that defense counsel's unavailability amounted to consent to a longer delay is also unavailing. Adjournments consented to by the defense must be clearly expressed to relieve the People of the responsibility for that portion of the delay....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Canosa
...429 N.Y.S.2d 558, 407 N.E.2d 405,supra ).” People v. Kendziz, supra. 338, 486 N.Y.S.2d 888, 891 (1985); See also: People v. Smith, 82 N.Y.2d 676, 601 N.Y.S.2d 466 (1993) In a “post-readiness” posture, however, the People will only be charged with those periods of delay which are solely the ......
-
People v. Scaringe
...[internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ); however, no such consent was shown as to any other adjournments (see People v. Smith, 82 N.Y.2d 676, 678, 601 N.Y.S.2d 466, 619 N.E.2d 403 [1993] ; People v. Battaglia, 187 A.D.2d 808, 810, 589 N.Y.S.2d 694 [1992] ). The total period of pre......
-
People v. Fung
...Counsel's consent was “clearly expressed to relieve the People of the responsibility for that portion of the delay” ( People v. Smith, 82 N.Y.2d 676, 678, 601 N.Y.S.2d 466, 619 N.E.2d 403 [1993];see People v. Liotta, 79 N.Y.2d 841, 580 N.Y.S.2d 184, 588 N.E.2d 82 [1992];People v. Sawh, 58 A......
-
People v. Gonzalezyunga
...558, 407 N.E.2d 405, supra)." People v. Kendziz, supra. 338, 486 N.Y.S.2d 888, 891 (1985) ; See also : People v. Smith , 82 NY2d 676, 601 N.Y.S.2d 466 (1993) Moreover, the People fail to demonstrate how these adjournments prevented them from serving discovery and filing a timely COC and SOR......