From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Philip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 20, 1994
205 A.D.2d 714 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

June 20, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's moving papers, on their face, did not show the existence of an unexcused delay greater than six months. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly refused to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial (CPL 30.30, [4] [a], [d]; see generally, People v. Santos, 68 N.Y.2d 859). Moreover, the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, specifically that he suffered any prejudice resulting from the delay (see, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530; People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442; People v. Penna, 203 A.D.2d 392).

The defendant's severance motion was untimely (CPL 255.10 [g]; 255.20 [2]), and he did not demonstrate "good cause" for the untimeliness (CPL 255.20; see, People v. Doby, 178 A.D.2d 427). In any event, as the defendant and the codefendant were charged with "acting in concert" in committing most of the offenses charged, the proof against the defendants was supplied by the same evidence and all of the offenses charged were based upon the same criminal transaction, the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for a separate trial (CPL 200.40 [a], [c]; see, People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174; People v Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, 87, cert denied sub nom. Victory v. New York, 416 U.S. 905; People v. Miceli, 199 A.D.2d 542). Moreover, the defendant did not demonstrate that his defense and that of the codefendant were in "irreconcilable conflict" (People v Mahboubian, supra, at 184; see also, People v. Santiago, 204 A.D.2d 497), and the fact that the defendant could have been cross-examined by the codefendant regarding his prior convictions was not sufficient to warrant severance in this case (see, People v. Brodie, 170 A.D.2d 519, 520).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find that they are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Philip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 20, 1994
205 A.D.2d 714 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Philip

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANDREW PHILIP…

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

Date published: Jun 20, 1994

Citations

205 A.D.2d 714 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
613 N.Y.S.2d 649

Citing Cases

People v. Winslow

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Inasmuch as the defendant's moving papers, on their face, did not show…

People v. Weaver

7 was not jurisdictionally defective due to the inclusion therein of the count of Criminal Possession of a…