People v. Torres
| Decision Date | 28 June 1996 |
| Citation | 669 N.E.2d 1112,646 N.Y.S.2d 790,88 N.Y.2d 928 |
| Parties | , 669 N.E.2d 1112 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Jose TORRES, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein, including consideration of the facts pursuant to CPL 470.25(2)(d) and 470.40(2)(b).
Defendant was arrested on March 27, 1989, and indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and second degrees. On June 13, 1989, Supreme Court issued a bench warrant when defendant, who had been released on his own recognizance, failed to appear for arraignment on the indictment. The warrant was assigned to a detective on July 5, 1989.
Between July 5 and October 6, 1989, the detective periodically checked the computer for additional information on the defendant, including whether the warrant remained active. On July 24, 1989, the detective received a photograph of the defendant. On October 6, 1989, the detective went to the address which defendant had given as his home address and discovered that defendant had never resided in the building. The detective subsequently learned that the defendant had provided another address where he could be reached. Upon further investigation, the detective discovered that the second address was nonexistent.
On June 27, 1990, defendant was arrested when he went to the airport to assist a coconspirator who was attempting to smuggle cocaine into the United States. Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to a Federal indictment. While incarcerated in a Federal penitentiary for the June 27 incident, defendant filed a motion to dismiss this action on speedy trial grounds. Supreme Court denied the motion and defendant proceeded to trial on charges arising out of the March 27, 1989 arrest. The jury convicted defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.
Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that he had been deprived of his ready trial right under CPL 30.30 and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division held the appeal in abeyance and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a de novo hearing on the ready trial motion because Supreme Court had relied on an Appellate Division case which had been reversed on appeal (see, People v. Bolden, 174 A.D.2d 111, 578 N.Y.S.2d 914, rev'd 81 N.Y.2d 146, 597 N.Y.S.2d 270, 613 N.E.2d 145) (People v. Torres, 210 A.D.2d 270, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lewis
...is unknown and he is attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution" ( CPL 30.30[4][c][i] ; see People v. Torres, 88 N.Y.2d 928, 931, 646 N.Y.S.2d 790, 669 N.E.2d 1112 [1996] ; People v. Devore, 65 A.D.3d 695, 696, 885 N.Y.S.2d 497 [2d Dept. 2009] ). Thus, the period of time from May 22, 2......
-
Crumb, Matter of
...to locate him (see, People v. Bolden, 81 N.Y.2d, at 155, 597 N.Y.S.2d 270, 613 N.E.2d 145, supra; People v. Torres, 88 N.Y.2d 928, 930-931, 646 N.Y.S.2d 790, 669 N.E.2d 1112; People v. Sigismundi, 89 N.Y.2d 587, 591, 657 N.Y.S.2d 381, 679 N.E.2d ...
-
People v. Minwalkulet
...not exercise due diligence in attempting to locate a defendant who is attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution" (People v Torres, 88 N.Y.2d 928, 931 [1996]). Moreover, knowledge of a defendant's location may not be imputed from one governmental entity to another; a defendant's locati......
-
People v. Minwalkulet
...diligence in attempting to locate a defendant who is attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution" ( People v. Torres , 88 N.Y.2d 928, 931, 646 N.Y.S.2d 790, 669 N.E.2d 1112 [1996] ). Moreover, knowledge of a defendant's location may not be imputed from one governmental entity to another......