From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Douglas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 28, 1999
264 A.D.2d 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

September 28, 1999

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton and Bruce Allen, JJ., on speedy trial motions; Daniel FitzGerald, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 8, 1995, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 1/2 to 11 years, unanimously

Vincent Rivellese, for Respondent.

Natalie Rea, for Defendant-Appellant.

SULLIVAN, J.P., NARDELLI, WALLACH, ANDRIAS, FRIEDMAN, JJ. affirmed.


Defendant's speedy trial motions were properly denied. The period from December 2, 1993, to January 6, 1994, was correctly excluded from the time chargeable to the People, pursuant to CPL 30.30 (4) (f), based on defense counsel's failure to appear for the calendar calls on December 2 and 14, 1993, regardless of the fact that the People had not yet declared readiness (see, People v. David, 253 A.D.2d 642, 644, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 948, People v. Lassiter, 240 A.D.2d 293, 293-294; People v. Brown, 195 A.D.2d 310, 311 lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 891). Moreover, the record establishes that the December 14 adjournment was due to counsel's engagement on trial. The certificates of readiness the People filed subsequent to answering not ready on August 2, 1994, January 25, 1995, and February 8, 1995, served "to toll the `speedy trial clock' from running for the remainder" of the adjournment periods (People v. Stirrup, 91 N.Y.2d 434, 440), and the good faith of such a certificate is not negated by the People's subsequent unreadiness at the next calendar call (People v. Acosta, 249 A.D.2d 161, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 892). The record fails to support defendant's claim that the certificates were illusory. Accordingly, the court correctly excluded from time chargeable to the People the periods that followed filing of the aforementioned certificates. Defendant's arguments as to other periods of time are unpreserved, and we decline to consider them in the interest of justice.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Douglas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 28, 1999
264 A.D.2d 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Douglas

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TONY DOUGLAS, etc.…

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

Date published: Sep 28, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
696 N.Y.S.2d 115

Citing Cases

People v. Lucas

Defense counsel claims that the People were not actually ready, but announced ready because they were aware…

People v. Williams

But defendant was produced on January 2 — the date on which he was in fact scheduled to be tried — thus…