People v. Velie
| Decision Date | 28 May 1993 |
| Citation | 193 A.D.2d 1107,598 N.Y.S.2d 636 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Robert VELIE, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert P. Isaac, Jr., Litte Valley, for appellant.
Andrew Phelan, Ellicottville, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and PINE, BALIO, FALLON and BOEHM, JJ.
County Court properly dismissed the second count of the indictment charging that defendant committed criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree in violation of Penal Law § 220.09(5). The undisputed facts in defendant's moving papers show that defendant was served with an appearance ticket requiring him to appear before a local criminal court on February 13, 1991 to answer a charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree in violation of Penal Law § 220.09(5); that defendant appeared before the court on that date but the People did not; that an indictment was filed on February 28, 1992 charging him with the same offense set forth in the appearance ticket and with three additional felonies; and that defendant was arraigned on that indictment on March 9, 1992, at which time the People announced the matter ready for trial. For purposes of CPL 30.30, the criminal action on the count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree was deemed commenced on February 13, 1991, when defendant appeared as directed by the appearance ticket (see, CPL 30.30[5][b]; People v. Parris, 79 N.Y.2d 69, 580 N.Y.S.2d 167, 588 N.E.2d 65). The People did not announce readiness until March 9, 1992. Thus, the People failed to announce the case ready within six months of the commencement of the action as required (see, CPL 30.30[1]. The People's contention that the entire period between defendant's appearance in the local court and the announcement of readiness should be excused because they were waiting for defendant to cooperate as an informant was properly rejected by County Court.
Counts one, three and four of the indictment, however, are reinstated. The affidavit of defendant's attorney, submitted in support of the motion to dismiss, did not assert a factual or legal basis for dismissal of those counts of the indictment not charged in the appearance ticket. No accusatory instrument was filed on or before the return date of the appearance ticket charging defendant with the offenses set forth in those three counts. With respect to those counts,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brisotti, BTP-11
...authority which directly discusses these concerns, a ruling by the Fourth Department appears dispositive. In People v. Velie, 193 A.D.2d 1107, 598 N.Y.S.2d 636 (4th Dep't 1993), the defendant had appeared in court with retained counsel. Although no accusatory instrument had been filed, coun......
-
People v. Salazar
...contain various criminal actions each one having a different commencement date for statutory speedy trial purposes (People v. Velie, 193 A.D.2d 1107, 1108, 598 N.Y.S.2d 636; People v. Lashway, 187 A.D.2d 747, 748, 589 N.Y.S.2d 687; People v. Murray, 127 A.D.2d 704, 705, 512 N.Y.S.2d 111; Pe......
-
People v. LeBlanc
...accusatory instrument and therefore have a different date at which the action is said to have commenced. People v. Velie, 193 A.D.2d 1107, 598 N.Y.S.2d 636 (4th Dep't 1993); People v. Papa, 96 A.D.2d 601, 465 N.Y.S.2d 295 (2d Dep't 1983); People v. Lashway, 187 A.D.2d 747, 589 N.Y.S.2d 687 ......
-
People v. Stirrup
...in court in response to a DAT, notwithstanding the fact that no accusatory instrument has been filed at that time (People v. Velie, 193 A.D.2d 1107, 598 N.Y.S.2d 636; see also, People v. Han, 166 Misc.2d 246, 632 N.Y.S.2d 748 [Crim. Ct., Bronx County 1995]; People v. Vescur, 134 Misc.2d 574......