From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pittman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 23, 2001
282 A.D.2d 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

April 2, 2001.

April 23, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barbaro, J.), rendered December 4, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Reyna E. Marder of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied his right to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30(1)(a). That statute provides that the People must be ready for a felony trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action, which occurred here upon the filing of the felony complaint on October 4, 1996. The People had to be ready for trial by April 4, 1997, which was six months, or 182 days, later. Since less than 182 days were chargeable to the People, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion (see, People v. Goss, 87 N.Y.2d 792; People v. Almonte, 267 A.D.2d 466; People v. David, 253 A.D.2d 642; People v. Lourens, 208 A.D.2d 768).


Summaries of

People v. Pittman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 23, 2001
282 A.D.2d 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Pittman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT v. TERRY PITTMAN, APPELLANT

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

Date published: Apr 23, 2001

Citations

282 A.D.2d 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
723 N.Y.S.2d 681

Citing Cases

People v. Pittman

December 9, 2002. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…

People v. Gibbs

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly…