From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lucas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 14, 1994
209 A.D.2d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 14, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.).


Ordered that the judgment convicting the defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 4281/89 is reversed, on the law, the defendant's speedy trial motion is granted, Indictment No. 4281/89 is dismissed, the defendant's plea of guilty under Indictment No. 12532/90 is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings.

We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court should have granted his motion to dismiss Indictment No. 4281/89 on speedy trial grounds (see, CPL 30.30). As the People correctly concede, the 46-day period between the dismissal of the first indictment for a violation of the then-existing rule announced in People v. Cade ( 140 A.D.2d 99, revd 74 N.Y.2d 410), and the date that the second indictment was filed, is chargeable to the prosecution and should not have been excluded by the court (see, People v. Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d 201). Had the court not excluded these 46 days, the total number of days chargeable to the People would have been 227 days, which is in excess of the 182-day limitation imposed by CPL 30.30.

On appeal, the People argue for the first time that the Supreme Court improperly charged them with the 20-day period from January 27, 1989 to February 16, 1989, and the 36-day period from September 27, 1989 to November 2, 1989, although in opposition to the defendant's CPL 30.30 motion they acknowledged that these time periods were chargeable to them. Thus, these arguments are not properly before this Court (see, People v. Bryant, 153 A.D.2d 636).

The defendant's plea of guilty on Indictment No. 12532/90 must be vacated since it was induced by an agreement that the sentence would be concurrent with the sentence imposed for the conviction under Indictment No. 4281/89, which we now reverse (see, People v. Fuggazzatto, 62 N.Y.2d 862; People v. Clark, 45 N.Y.2d 432, 440). O'Brien, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lucas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 14, 1994
209 A.D.2d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Lucas

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MARK LUCAS, Also Known…

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

Date published: Nov 14, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 622

Citing Cases

People v. Robbins

There is no transcript of the proceedings on November 13, 1989, and the People failed to present evidence at…

People v. Nigel D.

The period between September 1, 2023, and September 22, 2023, is excludable as motion practice. Periods of…