People v. Rice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rice

67 A.D.2d 817, 413 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10464

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 A.D.2d 817 (People v. Rice) 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. Rice, 67 A.D.2d 817, 413 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Appellant contends that he was denied a speedy trial with respect to the period from October 28, 1976 to July 15, 1977, a period of 8 months and 17 days. His argument fails because upon computing the excludable time permitted for "appeals” and "other periods of delay occasioned by exceptional circumstances” (CPL 30.30, subd 4, pars [a], [g]), the People were ready for trial within six months of the commencement of a criminal action (CPL 30.30 subd 1, par [a]). We consider that it was an exceptional circumstance that three different District Attorneys were responsible for taking action with respect to this case within a period of several months. The first District Attorney was superseded by order of the Governor of New York by the second, who was defeated in an election and succeeded by the third. In this time interval more than one third of the then existing District Attorney’s staff was replaced. The newly-elected District Attorney was ready for trial within the six months mandated after exclusion of the periods of time referred to. We have considered the other arguments raised by appellant and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court — attempted rape, first degree.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Dillon, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Appellant contends that he was denied a speedy trial with respect to the period from October 28, 1976 to July 15, 1977, a period of 8 months and 17 days. His argument fails because upon computing the excludable time permitted for "appeals” and "other periods of delay occasioned by exceptional circumstances” (CPL 30.30, subd 4, pars [a], [g]), the People were ready for trial within six months of the commencement of a criminal action (CPL 30.30 subd 1, par [a]). We consider that it was an exceptional circumstance that three different District Attorneys were responsible for taking action with respect to this case within a period of several months. The first District Attorney was superseded by order of the Governor of New York by the second, who was defeated in an election and succeeded by the third. In this time interval more than one third of the then existing District Attorney’s staff was replaced. The newly-elected District Attorney was ready for trial within the six months mandated after exclusion of the periods of time referred to. We have considered the other arguments raised by appellant and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court — attempted rape, first degree.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Dillon, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 817, 413 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rice-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack