From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 7, 2002
298 A.D.2d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-02046

Submitted September 19, 2002.

October 7, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), rendered February 7, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), and kidnapping in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

H. Fitzmore Harris, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Noreen Healey of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

As a general rule, when a defendant is accused of a felony, the indictment must be dismissed unless the People are ready for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action (see CPL 30.30[a]; People v. Carpenito, 199 A.D.2d 522) . The statutory six-month period is computed in terms of calendar months and thus is not necessarily 180 days (see People v. Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d 201). In this case, the prosecution had 184 days from May 1, 1997, to announce its readiness.

A defendant seeking a dismissal under CPL 30.30 must allege that the prosecution failed to declare readiness within six months, or that the aggregate unexcused delays are greater than six months (see People v. Goode, 95 N.Y.2d 835). The law distinguishes delays occurring before the prosecution has announced its readiness for trial from those that occur after (see People v. Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529). While pre-readiness delays are generally chargeable to the prosecution, post-readiness delays are charged only if they directly implicate the prosecution's ability to proceed with trial (see People v. Cortes, supra, at 210). We agree with the Supreme Court that the prosecution was responsible only for 181 days of delay.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 7, 2002
298 A.D.2d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. KURT MILLER, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 7, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 384

Citing Cases

People v. Miller

May 31, 2005. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…

People v. Biblioni

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention on appeal, he was not denied…