People v. Ronzetti

88 A.D.2d 982, 451 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17367
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 21, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 982 (People v. Ronzetti) 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. Ronzetti, 88 A.D.2d 982, 451 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Santagata, J.), rendered December 5, 1980, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the sixth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the sixth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant argues that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial (CPL 30.30). When, as in the [983]*983case at bar, the defendant has shown the existence of a delay greater than six months from the date of the commencement of the action, “the burden of proving that certain periods within that time should be excluded falls upon the People” (People v Berkowitz, 50 NY2d 333, 349; see, also, CPL 30.30, subd 4, par [b]). The People have satisfied their burden since it is not disputed that numerous delays were requested by defense counsel during the preindictment period for the purpose of arranging for plea negotiations. These requests were clearly for the benefit of defendant and were properly excluded when computing the time within which the People were required to be ready for trial under CPL 30.30 (subd 4, par [b]). We note that in People v Sturgis (38 NY2d 625), a similar delay occasioned by defense counsel’s request for an adjournment during the preindictment period was charged against the defendant. Accordingly, no violation of defendant’s right to a speedy trial occurred here. We have considered the other points raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Hieronymus
2024 NY Slip Op 50990(U) (New York District Court, 2024)
People v. Hieronymus
2024 NY Slip Op 50990(U) (Suffolk County District Court, 2024)
People v. Francisco
176 Misc. 2d 288 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1998)
People v. Worley
488 N.E.2d 1228 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
People v. Klaus
104 A.D.2d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. Russo
99 A.D.2d 498 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. Campbell
96 A.D.2d 725 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
People v. Escoto
121 Misc. 2d 957 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 A.D.2d 982, 451 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ronzetti-nyappdiv-1982.