From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Roscoe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 23, 1994
210 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

December 23, 1994

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Connell, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Balio, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The People appeal from an order dismissing the indictment upon speedy trial grounds (see, CPL 30.30 [a]). The People concede that County Court properly charged them with pre-indictment delay of 103 days. The People also acknowledge responsibility for 56 days of post-arraignment delay, stemming from the unexcused failure to provide the court with a transcript of the Grand Jury minutes (see, People v McKenna, 76 N.Y.2d 59). The People contend, however, that the court erred in measuring the period of post-arraignment delay chargeable to them from the date that defendant moved to dismiss the indictment. They assert that the time period from the date that defendant submitted his omnibus motion requesting a Wade hearing until the date that the hearing was conducted should not be included in the period of post-arraignment delay chargeable to the People. We disagree.

"Trial readiness in CPL 30.30 means both a communication of readiness by the People on the record and an indication of present readiness * * * The People are not presently ready for trial, for example, where they fail to provide Grand Jury minutes necessary for resolution of defendant's motion to dismiss" (People v England, 84 N.Y.2d 1, 4; see also, People v McKenna, supra). The lack of an identification hearing may impair the defendant's ability to proceed, but it does not impair the People's readiness for trial (cf., People v McKenna, supra, at 64). The People have not asserted an excuse for their failure to provide the court with the Grand Jury minutes, and the court properly concluded that the People were not ready for trial for 147 days after the date the omnibus motion papers were filed (see, People v Harris, 82 N.Y.2d 409). Excluding 36 days as a reasonable period for production of the Grand Jury minutes (see, People v Harris, 187 A.D.2d 1015, affd 82 N.Y.2d 409, supra), the period of delay assigned to the People exceeded the six-month readiness period, requiring dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds.


Summaries of

People v. Roscoe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 23, 1994
210 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Roscoe

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. CHESTER ROSCOE…

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

Date published: Dec 23, 1994

Citations

210 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
620 N.Y.S.2d 635

Citing Cases

People v. Tingue

In Harris, the Court of Appeals affirmed an Appellate Division holding that 36 days was a reasonable period…

People v. Tingue

In McKenna, the minutes were already in the district attorney's possession when the motion to inspect was…