Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered March 11, 1994, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's speedy trial motion was properly denied. The motion court properly excluded the time period from January 8, 1992 to February 27, 1992, since the People provided the Grand Jury minutes within a reasonable time (see, People v. Harris, 82 N.Y.2d 409, 604 N.Y.S.2d 918, 624 N.E.2d 1013) of the court's February 5th order granting defendant's motion to inspect and, up until that time, the various other branches of defendant's omnibus motion were sub judice notwithstanding the People's consent to the branch requesting the court to inspect the minutes (see, People v. Jones, 235 A.D.2d 297, 653 N.Y.S.2d 307, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1095, 660 N.Y.S.2d 389, 682 N.E.2d 990; People v. Douglas, 209 A.D.2d 161, 617 N.Y.S.2d 765, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 908, 627 N.Y.S.2d 331, 650 N.E.2d 1333).
The court properly excluded the time from June 18, 1993 to July 1, 1993 as a reasonable time to allow the People to prepare for trial following rendition of the court's decision suppressing much of the People's evidence (see, People v. Ali, 195 A.D.2d 368, 369, 600 N.Y.S.2d 55, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 804, 604 N.Y.S.2d 940, 624 N.E.2d 1035).
Defendant's claim that the court erred in failing to charge the People with the time period from July 22, 1993 to August 6, 1993 is not preserved for review (see, People v. Ladson, 85 N.Y.2d 926, 626 N.Y.S.2d 999, 650 N.E.2d 846), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find this period to be excludable.
Since the total amount of includable time falls far short of the period in which the People were required to be ready, we need not address two one-day adjournments claimed by defendant to be includable.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 19, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)