PEOPLE v. MOROBEL (2000)

In light of the five factors set forth in People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant to dismiss the indictment based on the alleged violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see, CPL 30.20).   Although 18 months elapsed between the date of defendant's arrest and the scheduled trial date, the charges involved class A-1 felonies, 15 defendants, and a multi-county drug trafficking investigation.   While defendant was incarcerated for the entire period, most of the delay was occasioned by motions and hearings concerning defendant and his 14 codefendants.   The People's failure to provide disclosure resulted in only minor delays, during which defendant filed additional motions.   Further, defendant has failed to show any prejudice as a result of the delay (see, People v. Thorpe, 183 A.D.2d 795, 795-796, 586 N.Y.S.2d 519, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 910, 588 N.Y.S.2d 836, 602 N.E.2d 244;  see also, People v. Murphy, 212 A.D.2d 811, 812, 623 N.Y.S.2d 278, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 977, 629 N.Y.S.2d 737, 653 N.E.2d 633;  cf., People v. Blakley, 34 N.Y.2d 311, 315, 357 N.Y.S.2d 459, 313 N.E.2d 763;  People v. Brown [Appeal No. 2], 117 A.D.2d 978, 979, 499 N.Y.S.2d 529), and this is not a case in which the delay was so great that the need to show prejudice is obviated (see, People v. Santiago, 209 A.D.2d 885, 618 N.Y.S.2d 925;  People v. Charles, 180 A.D.2d 868, 872, 580 N.Y.S.2d 99).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: