From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Fuggazzatto

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 7, 1984
62 N.Y.2d 862 (N.Y. 1984)

Summary

In People v. Fuggazzatto (62 N.Y.2d 862), two indictments were filed simultaneously and were therefore subject to identical time periods for the People to announce their readiness for trial under CPL 30.30.

Summary of this case from People v. Pichardo

Opinion

Argued May 7, 1984

Decided June 7, 1984

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Harry J. Donnelly, J.

Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney ( Brian D. Foley and Barbara D. Underwood of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Andrew E. Abraham and William E. Hellerstein for respondent-appellant.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by reversing that part which denied defendant's motion to vacate his plea and by dismissing indictment No. 1158/73 and, as so modified, affirmed.

Two indictments are in issue, No. 5172/72 and No. 1158/73, filed simultaneously. Defendant's motions pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss both indictments were denied. Defendant proceeded to trial on the first, resulting in a conviction, and entered a plea of guilty on the second, on the understanding that the sentence imposed would run concurrently with and not exceed the first. For the reasons stated in the Appellate Division's memorandum ( 96 A.D.2d 538), we agree that the period of more than six months between the filing of the indictments and the first attempt to execute the bench warrant was not excludable from the time limitations imposed by CPL 30.30, and that defendant's conviction was properly set aside and indictment No. 5172/72 dismissed. We note further that the period of more than six months between the dismissal of the felony complaint and the filing of the indictment itself provided an independent basis for dismissal under CPL 30.30 ( People v Osgood, 52 N.Y.2d 37).

Defendant's plea having been induced by the understanding that the sentence would be concurrent with the sentence imposed for his conviction, since set aside, the plea must be vacated ( People v Clark, 45 N.Y.2d 432, 440). Remittal for further proceedings on the second indictment is unnecessary because the speedy trial motion encompassed both indictments, and the reasons for dismissing the first apply with equal force to the second.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur.

Order modified by vacating defendant's plea to indictment No. 1158/73 and dismissing indictment No. 1158/73 and, as so modified, affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Fuggazzatto

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 7, 1984
62 N.Y.2d 862 (N.Y. 1984)

In People v. Fuggazzatto (62 N.Y.2d 862), two indictments were filed simultaneously and were therefore subject to identical time periods for the People to announce their readiness for trial under CPL 30.30.

Summary of this case from People v. Pichardo
Case details for

People v. Fuggazzatto

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant-Respondent, v. IGNATIUS…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 7, 1984

Citations

62 N.Y.2d 862 (N.Y. 1984)
477 N.Y.S.2d 619
466 N.E.2d 159

Citing Cases

People v. Freeman

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of rape in the second degree ( Penal…

People v. Williams

We thus conclude that there is a reasonable possibility that the admission of the tainted evidence influenced…