From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 30, 1995
220 A.D.2d 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 30, 1995

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's speedy trial motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30. The defendant failed to challenge, either in his motion papers or at the CPL 30.30 hearings, the time period between December 12, 1985, the date a bench warrant for his arrest was issued, and August 6, 1987, the date the People first learned of the defendant's apprehension in Maryland. Therefore, this issue is both unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011; People v. Manuli, 156 A.D.2d 388), and beyond our review since the Supreme Court specifically did not address its merits (see, People v. Noland, 189 A.D.2d 829).

The Supreme Court properly excluded the period between July 15, 1988, and October 14, 1988. Upon being informed of the defendant's detention and prosecution in Maryland for unrelated criminal charges, the People made diligent and reasonable efforts to secure the defendant's presence at trial by complying with the procedures set forth in the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (see, CPL 580.20; see also, People v. Reilly, 136 A.D.2d 355). Accordingly, the period between July 15, 1988, when the People first learned of the defendant's permanent place of incarceration in Maryland, and October 14, 1988, when he was ultimately extradited to New York, was not chargeable to the People (see, People v. Wojciechowski, 143 A.D.2d 164; People v. Gilbert, 142 A.D.2d 686; People v. Brown, 136 A.D.2d 715; People v. Leftwich, 126 A.D.2d 748; People v. Lowman, 102 A.D.2d 896).

Finally, as the hearing court correctly determined, the time period between July 15, 1988, and January 3, 1989, the date the defendant was ultimately brought to trial, even if chargeable to the People, did not exceed the 180 day requirement of CPL 30.30.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 30, 1995
220 A.D.2d 787 (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. CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS…

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

Date published: Oct 30, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
633 N.Y.S.2d 346

Citing Cases

People v. Henningsen

The provisions of CPL 30.30 (4)(e) allow for the time defendant is incarcerated in another jurisdiction to be…

People v. Branker

On appeal, the defendant contends that he was denied the right to a speedy trial under article III of CPL…