From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 6, 1982
88 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Summary

In People v. Phillips, 88 A.D.2d 672, 450 N.Y.S.2d 925 (3d Dept. 1982), the Third Department addressed the notice that the district attorney must provide to a defendant who has been "arraigned in a local criminal court upon a currently undisposed felony complaint dealing with the subject matter that grand jury proceedings are to commence."

Summary of this case from Saldana v. State of N.Y.

Opinion

May 6, 1982


Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Doran, J.), rendered June 30, 1981, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree. Defendant was arrested January 25, 1981 when found inside a bar at 4:30 A.M. and charged with burglary, third degree. Following an unsuccessful effort to secure a preliminary hearing, defendant was charged in a Grand Jury indictment with burglary, third degree. After unsuccessful motions to dismiss the indictment, defendant pleaded guilty on June 16, 1981 to the crime charged and was sentenced to a term of two to four years. Upon this appeal, defendant contends that he was denied his right to a preliminary hearing, and that he was not informed of his right to appear and testify before the Grand Jury. Defendant's argument that the denial of his right to a preliminary hearing requires a dismissal of the indictment misperceives the mandate of CPL article 180. Essentially, the Grand Jury has the power to indict regardless of whether a defendant's preliminary hearing has resulted in a dismissal, or whether a preliminary hearing has been held at all ( People ex rel. Hirschberg v. Close, 1 N.Y.2d 258, 261; see CPL 190.55; cf. People v. Hodge, 53 N.Y.2d 313 [once a preliminary hearing is commenced, a defendant is entitled to have it conducted in compliance with his right to counsel]). Thus, while a failure to accord a defendant a prompt hearing might secure his release from confinement (CPL 180.80), it would not affect the power of a Grand Jury to consider the evidence against him ( People v. Lohman, 49 A.D.2d 75). A conviction will not be vacated on the ground that the defendant was detained without the requisite hearing (see Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 119, and cases cited therein). The record reflects that defendant was represented by three successive attorneys, none of whom made a timely hearing request. Although apprised of his right to a hearing at arraignment, no such request was made until "sometime in February" and again on March 3, 1981, weeks after the arraignment. By this time, the case was already scheduled for presentment to the Grand Jury. Under the circumstances, we cannot characterize the prosecutor's failure to conduct a hearing as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the statute. Defendant also contends that he was not apprised of his right to testify before the Grand Jury, requiring dismissal of the indictment pursuant to CPL 210.20 and 210.35. Crim. Proc. The District Attorney is required to provide notice to a defendant who has been arraigned in a local criminal court upon a currently undisposed felony complaint dealing with the same subject matter that Grand Jury proceedings are to commence (CPL 190.50, subd 5, par [a]). The record demonstrates such notice to defendant's attorney a week in advance of the scheduled date of presentment. The attorney failed to serve notice upon the District Attorney requesting defendant's appearance before that body (CPL 190.50, subd 5, par [b]). In our view, the oral notice sufficiently complied with the People's statutory obligation under CPL 190.50 (subd 5) ( People v. Helm, 51 N.Y.2d 853, 854; People v. Otello, 48 A.D.2d 169). Moreover, following arraignment on the indictment, the District Attorney apprised defendant of his right to testify, tendered a waiver of immunity to him, and scheduled a date and time for defendant to appear before the same Grand Jury. That defendant chose to decline the offer does not negate the opportunity afforded him. Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P.J., Main, Yesawich, Jr., Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 6, 1982
88 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

In People v. Phillips, 88 A.D.2d 672, 450 N.Y.S.2d 925 (3d Dept. 1982), the Third Department addressed the notice that the district attorney must provide to a defendant who has been "arraigned in a local criminal court upon a currently undisposed felony complaint dealing with the subject matter that grand jury proceedings are to commence."

Summary of this case from Saldana v. State of N.Y.
Case details for

People v. Phillips

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PATRICK C. PHILLIPS…

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

Date published: May 6, 1982

Citations

88 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

People v. Fagan

A defendant does not have any constitutional right to a preliminary hearing, "nor is it a jurisdictional…

Saldana v. State of N.Y.

Applying the standard set forth in Leggio, it is clear that Saldana "activated" his right to appear "in an…