From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 6, 1988
141 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

June 6, 1988

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.).


Ordered that the case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, to hear and report on the defendant's speedy trial motion, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The County Court is to file its report with all convenient speed.

The defendant contends that the People violated his right to a speedy trial as provided for in CPL 30.30 and that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based upon that ground.

The parties agree that a felony complaint was filed on or about February 14, 1984, and that the People announced their readiness for trial on August 9, 1984. The defendant's CPL 30.30 motion was made on September 10, 1984, approximately seven months after the filing of the accusatory instrument.

Initially, we note that the People's contention that their announcement of readiness for trial tolled the applicable limitation period is without merit. Pursuant to CPL 30.30 (3) (b) a defendant may move for dismissal upon speedy trial grounds after the People have answered ready for trial. Delays by the People subsequent to such announcement and prior to the defendant's motion, if any, are to be included in the court's computations in determining whether to dismiss the indictment (see, People v Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529, 534).

It appears that at least seven months elapsed from the time of the commencement of the criminal proceeding against the defendant to the making of the CPL 30.30 motion. However, the court did not examine the period of time subsequent to the People's announcement of readiness to determine whether any adjournments or delays during such period were chargeable to the People. Based upon the record before us, we cannot determine whether the People exceeded the time within which they were required to be ready for trial. Therefore, remittitur of the matter for a hearing on such issue is necessary (see, People v Manescala, 138 A.D.2d 633; People v Brown, 114 A.D.2d 418, affd on remand 136 A.D.2d 715; People v Horney, 99 A.D.2d 886, affd on remand 103 A.D.2d 891; People v Klaus, 94 A.D.2d 748). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 6, 1988
141 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Jackson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ERWIN JACKSON…

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

Date published: Jun 6, 1988

Citations

141 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Richardson

This initial notice of readiness preserves for the People the unexpired portion of the readiness period that…

People v. Mayer

As to defendant's CPL 30.30 motion, we note that the time period between October 3, 2001, when the justices…