From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sorce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1995
214 A.D.2d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

April 24, 1995

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

CPL 30.30 (1) (a) provides that the People must be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of a criminal action in which a felony is charged. In the case at bar, the proceeding against the defendant was commenced on January 10, 1991. The defendant concedes that he executed a waiver of his speedy trial rights covering the period January 10, 1991, through February 8, 1991. Thus, the People were required to be ready for trial on August 8, 1991, a period of 181 days from the commencement of the action. The People did not announce their readiness until October 7, 1991, a period of 240 days. The defendant argues that this entire 240-day period is chargeable to People and thus the indictment must be dismissed. We disagree.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the 76-day period of time from May 7, 1991, to July 23, 1991, was not chargeable to the People. It was excludable as an "exceptional circumstance" since the codefendant indicated that she wanted to testify before the Grand Jury and her attorney was unavailable (CPL 30.30 [g]; see also, People v Khan, 172 A.D.2d 231; People v Fluellen, 160 A.D.2d 219; People v LaBounty, 104 A.D.2d 202, 203). Excluding this 76-day period, a total of 164 days are chargeable to the People. Accordingly, since the People were required to be ready for trial within 181 days, the defendant's speedy trial rights pursuant to CPL 30.30 were not violated.

We further find that the imposition of a sentence of 15 years to life imprisonment upon the defendant's conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree was not cruel and unusual punishment as applied to this defendant (see, People v Thompson, 83 N.Y.2d 477; People v Broadie, 37 N.Y.2d 100, cert denied 423 U.S. 950). Nor was the defendant denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Sorce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1995
214 A.D.2d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Sorce

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH J. SORCE…

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

Date published: Apr 24, 1995

Citations

214 A.D.2d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
625 N.Y.S.2d 639

Citing Cases

Sorce v. Artuz

Sorce's conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division of New York's Supreme Court in an opinion dated…

People v. Seamans

The People never sought a continuance while attempting to secure Hernandez's grand jury testimony. Further,…