From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hudson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1990
167 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

November 16, 1990

Appeal from the Erie County Court, Drury, J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he had been denied his statutory right to a speedy trial (CPL 30.30, 210.20 Crim. Proc.). We disagree. The court properly excluded from the statutory six-month time period (CPL 30.30 [a]) delays consented to or requested by defendant to attempt to negotiate a favorable plea bargain and to testify before the Grand Jury (see generally, People v. Sharpe, 115 A.D.2d 996, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 889; People v. Wolf, 115 A.D.2d 997, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 892). Also properly excluded were the nine days "during which the defendant [was] without counsel through no fault of the court" (CPL 30.30 [f]). We also agree with the court's exclusion of 57 days because of defendant's avoidance from apprehension (see, CPL 30.30 [c]; People v. Brazeau, 162 A.D.2d 979; People v. Liss, 131 A.D.2d 595, 596, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 714). When these periods are excluded, the People were ready for trial within the six-month period. We, however, do agree with the People that the hearing court erred in failing to exclude the period from April 27, 1988 to June 28, 1988. The hearing court charged this period to the People because of the failure by the police to exercise due diligence to locate defendant. During this period the police checked repeatedly for defendant at his place of employment, went to defendant's sister's house on two occasions, and interviewed defendant's two sisters and one of their boyfriends in their attempt to locate defendant. Under all the circumstances, those efforts to locate defendant were reasonable and constituted "due diligence" (CPL 30.30 [c]; People v. Wojciechowski, 143 A.D.2d 164, 165-166, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 861; People v. Stone, 136 A.D.2d 662, 663).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Hudson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1990
167 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Hudson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JIMMY HUDSON, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1990

Citations

167 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
561 N.Y.S.2d 1014

Citing Cases

People v. Waldron

Defendant was not denied his statutory right to a speedy trial ( see generally CPL 30.30) as a result of…

People v. Thomas

We further find that County Court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground…