From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 23, 1999
259 A.D.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 23, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.).


Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 was properly denied. Defendant's motion papers were insufficient to establish that defendant's right to a speedy trial had been violated, because his moving papers did not contain sworn allegations that the People at any point failed to declare their readiness for trial, but merely concluded that all periods of delay were attributable to the People, without providing any of the requisite dates or relevant time periods, which the court would have needed to calculate what periods of delay should be charged to the People ( see, CPL 210.45; People v. Lomax, 50 N.Y.2d 351).

Defendant's challenges to the court's charge are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the charge as a whole conveyed the appropriate legal standard concerning reasonable doubt ( see, People v. Thomas, 210 A.D.2d 10, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 867; People v. Grandy, 197 A.D.2d 379, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 895).

Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 23, 1999
259 A.D.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Jackson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LEON JACKSON, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 23, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
687 N.Y.S.2d 121

Citing Cases

People v. Young

The court's summary denial of defendant's speedy trial motion was proper because the motion papers were…

People v. O'Brady

Similarly, within the realm of criminal proceedings, courts have held that defendants' motions to dismiss…