From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Benjamin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 7, 2002
292 A.D.2d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

418-419

March 7, 2002.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered April 21, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, 6 to 12 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, and judgment, same court, (Felice Shea, J.), rendered October 24, 1997, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a concurrent term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Christopher Wilson for respondent.

Jeffrey I. Richman for defendant-appellant.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Sullivan, Rubin, Friedman, JJ.


Defendant's speedy trial motion was properly denied. The 18-day period at issue was properly excluded from the time in which the People were required to be ready because defendant failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued and stayed against him (People v. Notholt, 242 A.D.2d 251, 254; People v. Cruz, 236 A.D.2d 322, 323, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1090). Moreover, the adjournment was clearly on consent because defense counsel informed the court that he was actually engaged and effectively requested an adjournment of unspecified length, as well as actively participating in setting a mutually convenient adjourned date (see, People v. Lassiter, 240 A.D.2d 293; People v. Cambridge, 230 A.D.2d 649, 650).

The court's verdict in the nonjury trial was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of identification and credibility, including the weight to be given the inability of the police to recover drugs or buy money from defendant, were properly considered by the trier of facts and there is no basis upon which to disturb its determinations.

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Benjamin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 7, 2002
292 A.D.2d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Benjamin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. EUGENE BENJAMIN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 7, 2002

Citations

292 A.D.2d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
739 N.Y.S.2d 667

Citing Cases

People v. Gellatly

Defendant does not contend that the People should be charged for this adjournment.The courts have recognized…

State v. Penil

The matter was adjourned to June 5, 2006. This period is excludable. ( People v Benjamin, 292 AD2d 191 [1st…