People v. Hargro

144 A.D.2d 971, 534 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14466
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1988·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The People appeal from an order which dismissed an indictment charging defendant with felony driving while intoxicated because the People failed to provide defendant with his statutory right to a speedy trial (CPL 30.30). The mere announcement of readiness for trial by a prosecutor does not satisfy the People’s statutory obligation because the People must be able to substantiate that they are in fact ready to proceed (People v Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331, 337; People v Dean, 45 NY2d 651, 656). Only then may the court ascertain whether the People "effectively” announced their readiness for trial (People v Brothers, 50 NY2d 413, 417). Here, the court’s finding that the People did not satisfy their burden in demonstrating their continued readiness during the period in question is amply supported by the record. Since 189 days were chargeable to the People, the court properly granted defendant’s speedy trial motion. (Appeal from order of Erie [972] County Court, Drury, J. — dismiss indictment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

People v. Hargro, 144 A.D.2d 971, 534 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

144 A.D.2d 971 (People v. Hargro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Blunt
189 Misc. 2d 471 (New York Supreme Court, 2001)
People v. Robinson
143 Misc. 2d 163 (New York Supreme Court, 1989)