People v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 09 February 1987 |
| Citation | 511 N.Y.S.2d 908,127 A.D.2d 714 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ronald TAYLOR, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Elaine D. McKnight, Brooklyn, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Andrea Shapiro, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, BROWN and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dubin, J.), rendered November 5, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree (two counts), assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
At a speedy trial hearing held before Justice Dunkin, the parties stipulated that the only period in dispute was from January 20, 1981, until January 5, 1982. The court properly found that this period was excludable under CPL 30.30(4)(c) since the defendant's location was unknown and could not be determined with due diligence. During this time period the defendant was sent notices to his last known address requiring him to appear in court, but those notices were returned "address unknown". A bench warrant was issued for the defendant's arrest, and, in their attempt to execute it, the police checked with the telephone company, postal service and the Department of Social Services. They checked for the defendant on their central computers and they also went to three of the defendant's most recent reported addresses and interviewed neighbors. Despite these efforts, the police were unable to determine the defendant's whereabouts until they were notified that he had been arrested in Virginia on or about January 5, 1982. In attempting to locate the defendant during the disputed time period in order to effectuate his arrest, the police met the due diligence standard (see, People v. Manley, 63 A.D.2d 988, 406 N.Y.S.2d 108).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every favorable inference to be drawn therefrom, we find that the evidence amply supports the jury's verdict. The complainant testified that the defendant, whom he knew, accompanied by three other men, broke down his door, brutally beat him, stabbed him, and removed property from both his person and his living quarters. Any questions in this case regarding the complainant's credibility or the accuracy of his identification of the defendant as one of the assailants presented issues for the jury's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Garrett
...v. Macklowe, 131 A.D.2d 785, 517 N.Y.S.2d 73 (2d Dept.1987) (notices sent to the defendant's father's address); People v. Taylor, 127 A.D.2d 714, 511 N.Y.S.2d 908 (2d Dept.1987), appeal denied, 71 N.Y.2d 974, 529 N.Y.S.2d 85, 524 N.E.2d 439 (notices sent to defendant's last known address); ......
-
People v. Douglas
...have been successful if it had been renewed ( see, People v. Manley, 63 A.D.2d 988, 989, 406 N.Y.S.2d 108; see also, People v. Taylor, 127 A.D.2d 714, 511 N.Y.S.2d 908; People v. Walters, 127 A.D.2d 870, 511 N.Y.S.2d 957, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 956, 516 N.Y.S.2d 1040, 509 N.E.2d 375, lv. deni......
-
People v. Harris
...not required (People v. Lugo, 140 A.D.2d 715, 528 N.Y.S.2d 895; People v. Hutchenson, 136 A.D.2d 737, 524 N.Y.S.2d 76; People v. Taylor, 127 A.D.2d 714, 511 N.Y.S.2d 908). Moreover, under the facts of this case, the court finds that the People's failure to extradite defendant when he was br......
-
People v. Jackson
...On this record, it is clear that the People did exercise due diligence in their attempt to locate the defendant (see, People v. Taylor, 127 A.D.2d 714, 511 N.Y.S.2d 908; People v. Walters, 127 A.D.2d 870, 511 N.Y.S.2d 957; People v. Macklowe, 131 A.D.2d 785, 517 N.Y.S.2d Moreover, the defen......