From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Camillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 16, 2001
279 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

January 16, 2001.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J., on speedy trial motion; Joseph Fisch, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered October 25, 1996, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession "of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3½ to 7 years and 1 year, respectively, and judgment, same court (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered November 8, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a concurrent term of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.


Defendant's speedy trial motion was properly denied. The certificates of readiness filed by the People after answering not ready on certain occasions tolled the speedy trial clock from running for the remainder of the adjournment periods and the good faith of such certificates was not negated by the People's unreadiness at the subsequent calendar calls ( People v. Douglas, 264 A.D.2d 671, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 862; see also, People v. Stirrup, 91 N.Y.2d 434, 440; People v. Acosta, 249 A.D.2d 161, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 892). The fact that the court granted longer adjournments than requested by the People did not require such time to be charged to the People ( see, People v. Rivera, 223 A.D.2d 476, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 852). The record supports the court's conclusion that the prosecutor's notices of readiness were not illusory ( see, People v. Kendzia, 64 N.Y.2d 331). The People are not required to contact their witnesses on every adjourned date ( People v. Robinson, 171 A.D.2d 475, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 973), nor do they have to be able to produce their witnesses instantaneously in order for a statement of readiness to be valid ( see, People v. Dushain, 247 A.D.2d 234, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 1007).

Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.


Summaries of

People v. Camillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 16, 2001
279 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Camillo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE CAMILLO, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 16, 2001

Citations

279 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
719 N.Y.S.2d 239

Citing Cases

People v. Lucas

Defense counsel claims that the People were not actually ready, but announced ready because they were aware…

People v. Hill

Rather, the matter was adjourned on those occasions due to other, older matters proceeding to trial before…