People v. Wilson

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Wilson

655 N.E.2d 168, 86 N.Y.2d 753, 631 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 2227

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 5, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 655 N.E.2d 168 (People v. Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Wilson, 655 N.E.2d 168, 86 N.Y.2d 753, 631 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 2227 (N.Y. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant argues that the People violated his right to a speedy trial by failing to indicate readiness to proceed with his trial within "six months of the commencement of [defendant’s] criminal action” as required by CPL 30.30 (1) (a). The Appellate Division reversed defendant’s original conviction, remanded the case and ordered a new trial (156 AD2d 743). Subsequently, on defendant’s second appeal, the Appellate Division remitted the matter to County Court for a CPL 30.30 hearing (188 AD2d 671). After that hearing, defendant’s conviction was upheld a third and final time in the Appellate Division (207 AD2d 849). For purposes of defendant’s CPL 30.30 (1) (a) contention, the time must be measured from the date of the Appellate Division’s reversal of defendant’s first conviction, which occurred December 26, 1989. Defendant’s claim here must fail because the record indicates that the People announced their readiness on March 22, 1990, which was within the six-month period permitted under the statute. On that date, the People stated "we have been in contact with the victim. Our intentions are to go forward”. The prior courts determined that this statement sufficiently indicated the People’s readiness for trial, and we agree.

Our decision in People v Kendzia (64 NY2d 331) does not compel a different result. In Kendzia, we construed CPL 30.30 (1) (a) to require that the People (1) must communicate their state of readiness on the record and (2) must, in fact, be ready to proceed when they proclaim readiness. Regarding the second element in Kendzia, we stressed that CPL 30.30 requires actual readiness by the People, and "not a prediction or expectation of future readiness” (id., at 337). The first element *755 was satisfied by the People’s on-the-record oral communication to the court. The second element was satisfied here where the People had secured the complainant’s cooperation for retrial, possessed a valid accusatory instrument, and had produced defendant.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant argues that the People violated his right to a speedy trial by failing to indicate readiness to proceed with his trial within "six months of the commencement of [defendant’s] criminal action” as required by CPL 30.30 (1) (a). The Appellate Division reversed defendant’s original conviction, remanded the case and ordered a new trial (156 AD2d 743). Subsequently, on defendant’s second appeal, the Appellate Division remitted the matter to County Court for a CPL 30.30 hearing (188 AD2d 671). After that hearing, defendant’s conviction was upheld a third and final time in the Appellate Division (207 AD2d 849). For purposes of defendant’s CPL 30.30 (1) (a) contention, the time must be measured from the date of the Appellate Division’s reversal of defendant’s first conviction, which occurred December 26, 1989. Defendant’s claim here must fail because the record indicates that the People announced their readiness on March 22, 1990, which was within the six-month period permitted under the statute. On that date, the People stated "we have been in contact with the victim. Our intentions are to go forward”. The prior courts determined that this statement sufficiently indicated the People’s readiness for trial, and we agree.

Our decision in People v Kendzia (64 NY2d 331) does not compel a different result. In Kendzia, we construed CPL 30.30 (1) (a) to require that the People (1) must communicate their state of readiness on the record and (2) must, in fact, be ready to proceed when they proclaim readiness. Regarding the second element in Kendzia, we stressed that CPL 30.30 requires actual readiness by the People, and "not a prediction or expectation of future readiness” (id., at 337). The first element *755 was satisfied by the People’s on-the-record oral communication to the court. The second element was satisfied here where the People had secured the complainant’s cooperation for retrial, possessed a valid accusatory instrument, and had produced defendant.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

655 N.E.2d 168, 86 N.Y.2d 753, 631 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 2227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wilson-ny-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack