From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 31, 1996
227 A.D.2d 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 31, 1996

Appeal from the Erie County Court, Rogowski, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 210.20 (1) (g) and 30.30 (1) (a). The People announced their readiness for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action ( see, CPL 30.30 [a]), and the postreadiness delays were not chargeable to them ( see, People v. Tavarez, 147 A.D.2d 355, 356-357, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 1022; People v. Giordano, 81 A.D.2d 1003, affd 56 N.Y.2d 524). We likewise reject the contention that the court erred in failing to grant defendant's application for a material witness order; defendant failed to demonstrate that the witness was not amenable or responsive to a subpoena ( see, CPL 620.20 [b]; 620.30 [1]; People v. Anderson, 168 A.D.2d 360, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 953). We further conclude that defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence ( see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Hales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 31, 1996
227 A.D.2d 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Hales

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PAUL HALES, Appellant

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

Date published: May 31, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
644 N.Y.S.2d 450