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, etc., respondent, v. Michael DELACRUZ, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered February 18, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the People violated the six-month trial readiness requirement set forth in CPL 30.30(1)(a). The People should not be charged with that period of time in which the defendant was incarcerated under a different name in a different county within the State (see, People v. Mitchell, 106 A.D.2d 478, 482 N.Y.S.2d 574). Moreover, the defendant's conduct, including his failure to appear for scheduled court dates and his use of different names, birthdays, social security numbers, and addresses, strongly suggest that he was attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution (see, People v. Torres, 88 N.Y.2d 928, 646 N.Y.S.2d 790, 669 N.E.2d 1112; People v. Jackson, 150 A.D.2d 609, 541 N.Y.S.2d 478). Under these circumstances, the People were not required to exercise due diligence to locate the defendant (see, CPL 30.30[4][c][i] [former(c) ]; People v. Sigismundi, 89 N.Y.2d 587, 657 N.Y.S.2d 381, 679 N.E.2d 620; People v. Cadilla, 245 A.D.2d 9, 666 N.Y.S.2d 111).
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request, made on the first day of jury selection, for an independent drug test. The motion was untimely and the defendant did not offer an adequate explanation for his failure to seek to have the drugs tested, since they were available for inspection during pretrial discovery (see, CPL 255.20 [1]; People v. Molling, 238 A.D.2d 915, 661 N.Y.S.2d 129; People v. James, 233 A.D.2d 903, 649 N.Y.S.2d 550).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: April 03, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)