From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 22, 1991
172 A.D.2d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 22, 1991

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds was properly denied. The defendant was arrested based on a felony complaint in December 1987, and subsequently released on bail. A bench warrant was issued for his arrest on May 23, 1988, after he failed to appear in court on several occasions. The defendant was arrested in Virginia on February 4, 1989, on an unrelated charge and waived extradition to New York.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the eight-month delay in prosecution from May 24, 1988, to his appearance in court on February 6, 1989, is attributable to the People. No issue is raised on appeal with respect to the delay prior to May 24, 1988, and the record indicates that the defendant signed a waiver of his right to a speedy trial while his case was pending in the County Court during that period. We need not address the People's contention that this waiver applied to the period after the bench warrant was issued on May 23, 1988, as we conclude that the People met their burden of establishing that the defendant's location was unknown and that he was attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution (see, CPL 30.30 [c]; People v Jackson, 142 A.D.2d 597). No hearing was required on the speedy trial motion as the parties' moving papers do not raise a factual dispute which must be resolved (see, People v. Santos, 68 N.Y.2d 859; People v. Gruden, 42 N.Y.2d 214).

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the subject vials contained cocaine. Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review it. Lawrence, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 22, 1991
172 A.D.2d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES T. HALL…

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

Date published: Apr 22, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)