People v. Thomas
| Citation | 75 N.Y.S.3d 777,59 Misc.3d 64 |
| Decision Date | 28 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | 570255/17 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Ranja THOMAS, Defendant–Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term |
59 Misc.3d 64
75 N.Y.S.3d 777
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Ranja THOMAS, Defendant–Respondent.
570255/17
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
Decided March 28, 2018
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Stanley R. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant.
The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Abigail Parr of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Gonzalez, Cooper, JJ.
Per Curiam.
Order (George A. Grasso, J.), dated November 4, 2016, affirmed.
Criminal Court properly granted defendant's CPL 30.30 motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument. Defendant was charged in a felony complaint with assault in the second degree (see Penal Law § 120.05[3] ), as well as related misdemeanors and violations. The case was twice adjourned for grand jury action between July 21, 2014 and October 27, 2014. On October 27, 2014, the People stated that the case still had not been presented to the grand jury, and requested a further adjournment for grand jury action. The matter was adjourned to January 12, 2015. However, on November 21, 2014, the People filed an affirmation seeking to "reduce" the sole felony charge pursuant to CPL 180.50. This affirmation indicated, without any detail, that the People had unsuccessfully
attempted to contact defense counsel in an effort to advance the case and reduce the charges. There is no indication in the record that the People took any further action until the previously scheduled adjourn date of January 12, 2015, 52 days later. On that date, the People successfully moved to "dismiss," rather than "reduce" the felony count, and answered ready on the remaining counts.
The parties do not dispute that the speedy trial time limitation applicable to this matter, which was commenced by the filing of a felony complaint, is 184 days (see CPL 30.30[5][c] ). The People concede 139 days of chargeable time, including the period between October 27, 2014, when the case was adjourned for grand jury action, and November 21, 2014, when they filed their off-calendar affirmation to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jawad
...delay"]). On the record before this court, it does not appear that on September 15th a motion "was actually made." (See People v. Thomas, 59 Misc.3d 64, 66 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2018]). While the People assert that defense counsel asked that they consent to suppression hearings on that date......
-
People v. Vernon
...CPL § 30.30(4)(a) "generally refers to delays attributable to responding to and deciding motions actually made"); People v. Thomas , 59 Misc.3d 64, 75 N.Y.S.3d 777 (1st Dep., App. Term 2018) (determining that a motion to dismiss felony counts is not a "pretrial motion" under CPL 30.30(4)(a)......
-
People v. Saavedra
...accompanied by any notice of motion, did not contain any return date, and the court did not set a motion schedule." ( People v. Thomas , 59 Misc. 3d 64, 66, 75 N.Y.S.3d 777 [App. Term, 1st Dep't 2018] ). Therefore, "no motion was actually made" on that off-calendar 172 N.Y.S.3d 907 date. ( ......
-
People v. S.E.
...motions under CPL 30.30(4)(a) "generally refers to delays attributable to responding to and deciding motions actually made"); People v Thomas, 59 Misc.3d 64 [Supp Ct, App 1st Dept 2018] (determining that a motion to dismiss felony counts is not a "pretrial motion" under CPL 30.30(4)(a) and ......