Opinion
No. 2011–602 K CR.
2013-03-25
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Rahkiya HAWKINS, Respondent.
Present: WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), dated January 18, 2011. The order granted defendant's motion to dismiss, on constitutional speedy trial grounds, a count of an accusatory instrument charging him with driving while ability impaired.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed.
On March 8, 2008, defendant was charged with driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1] ) and two counts of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2], [3] ). The counts of driving while intoxicated were subsequently dismissed. Thereafter, on November 8, 2010, defendant moved to dismiss, on constitutional speedy trial grounds (CPL 30.20), the remaining count of driving while ability impaired. The Criminal Court granted the motion, finding that defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated based upon the length of the delay, the number of times the People had announced that they were not ready for trial, and the fact that defendant's driver's license had been suspended for almost three years without defendant having been found guilty of the charged offense.
A determination of a defendant's constitutional speedy trial claim (CPL 30.20) requires consideration of the extent of, and the reason for, the delay, the nature of the charge, whether there has been a period of pretrial incarceration, and whether the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay ( see People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445 [1975];see also People v. Romeo, 12 NY3d 51 [2009] ). In our view, defendant has demonstrated that there was a protracted delay in the prosecution of the case and that she was prejudiced thereby. Consequently, defendant's motion to dismiss the count of the accusatory instrument charging her with driving while ability impaired was properly granted (U.S. Const 6th, 14th Amends; CPL 30.20).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.