From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 30, 1995
211 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

January 30, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30. After subtracting the periods of delay resulting from the defendant's pretrial motions, delays to which the defendant consented, adjournments at the defendant's request, the period during which the defendant was without counsel without the fault of the court, and the periods during which one of the defendants' attorneys was engaged elsewhere, the total time chargeable to the People falls within the six months permitted by CPL 30.30.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the period following the People's first announcement of readiness until the dismissal of the indictment is analyzed under the guidelines of post-readiness analysis, which concerns itself with only those delays which "directly implicate the People's ability to proceed with trial" (People v. Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d 201, 210). We find that under post-readiness scrutiny, no days are chargeable to the People for this period since the defendant concedes that a codefendant's attorney was engaged elsewhere and thus did not attend the instant proceedings. In light of post-readiness analysis, the engagement of a codefendant's counsel could in no way directly implicate the People's ability to proceed with trial and therefore these delays cannot be chargeable to the People.

The People have conceded an additional 19 days which, in addition to the trial court's total charge of 160 days to the People, still falls short of the six-month limit of 184 days delay permitted pursuant to CPL 30.30.

The defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial has not been violated since we find that the remaining days contested by the defendant are not chargeable to the People because they fall within certain of the exclusions provided by CPL 30.30 (see, CPL 30.30 [f]; see also, People v. Greene, 134 A.D.2d 612 [35 days is a reasonable time for the court to appoint counsel]; see also, CPL 30.30 [a]; People v. Worley, 66 N.Y.2d 523, 527 [time required for pretrial motions excluded from CPL 30.30]). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 30, 1995
211 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH WILLIAMS…

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

Date published: Jan 30, 1995

Citations

211 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
621 N.Y.S.2d 380

Citing Cases

People v. Yampierre

The pre-readiness delay was excusable because it resulted from pretrial motions made by the defendant and the…

People v. Walsh

The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in allowing testimony regarding the length of several…