People v. Alicea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Alicea

109 A.D.2d 1083, 487 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47572

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 1, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 109 A.D.2d 1083 (People v. Alicea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Alicea, 109 A.D.2d 1083, 487 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s argument on appeal from convictions for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third, fourth and seventh degrees that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial (CPL 30.30). It is undisputed that the time chargeable to the People prior to their statement of readiness on the record is within the statutorily mandated period. Defendant urges, however, that the period after the statement of readiness is also chargeable to the People because of their failure to comply with a direction that they make the seized drugs available to defendant’s chemist. Defendant argues that this failure prevented him from preparing his defense. The delay complained of is “in no way inconsistent with the prosecution’s continued readiness” (People v Cole, 90 AD2d 27, 29) and it should not be charged to the People (see, People v Runion, 107 AD2d 1080; People v Jones, 106 AD2d 585; People v Cole, supra). [1084]*1084We have examined the other points raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Adams, J. — criminal possession of controlled substance, third degree, and other charges.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s argument on appeal from convictions for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third, fourth and seventh degrees that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial (CPL 30.30). It is undisputed that the time chargeable to the People prior to their statement of readiness on the record is within the statutorily mandated period. Defendant urges, however, that the period after the statement of readiness is also chargeable to the People because of their failure to comply with a direction that they make the seized drugs available to defendant’s chemist. Defendant argues that this failure prevented him from preparing his defense. The delay complained of is “in no way inconsistent with the prosecution’s continued readiness” (People v Cole, 90 AD2d 27, 29) and it should not be charged to the People (see, People v Runion, 107 AD2d 1080; People v Jones, 106 AD2d 585; People v Cole, supra). [1084]*1084We have examined the other points raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Adams, J. — criminal possession of controlled substance, third degree, and other charges.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 1083, 487 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-alicea-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack