People v Correa (Miguel)

[*1] People v Correa (Miguel) 2015 NY Slip Op 51378(U) Decided on September 29, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 29, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P. Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570312/15

The People of the State of New York, Appellant,

against

Miguel Correa, Defendant-Respondent.

The People appeal from: (1) an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (William L. McGuire, Jr., J.), dated May 24, 2013, which, upon reargument, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL 30.30 and (2) an order (same court and Judge), dated October 23, 2013, which denied the People's motion to reargue the aforesaid order.

Per Curiam.

Order (William L. McGuire, Jr., J.), dated May 24, 2013, reversed, on the law, motion denied, information reinstated and matter remitted to Criminal Court for further proceedings. Appeal from order (William L. McGuire, Jr., J.) dated October 23, 2013, dismissed as moot.

Criminal Court erred in dismissing the accusatory instrument on speedy trial grounds. The People's statement of readiness (at arraignment) to proceed to trial on the assault, criminal mischief, menacing and harassment charges, effectively stopped the "speedy trial" clock, inasmuch as the counts of the accusatory instrument pertaining to these charges were "deemed" converted to an information on that date (CPL 170.65[1]), and no basis is shown to conclude that the People were not then actually ready to proceed on the converted charge (see People v Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331, 337 [1985]; People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 798 [1988]). That the accusatory instrument may have contained another count which had not been timely converted did not signify a lack of readiness to proceed on the properly converted counts, concerning which the People were "technically positioned" to go to trial (People v Terry, 225 AD2d 306, 307 [1996], lv denied 88 NY 886 [1996]; see also People v Dion, 93 NY2d 893 [1999]). We once again emphasize that speedy trial analysis "must, as a matter of course, often involve distinct considerations with respect to individual counts of a single accusatory instrument" (People v Gonzalez, 168 Misc 2d 136, 137 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 936 [1996]; People v Ausby, 46 Misc 3d 126[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51763 [App Term, 1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1218 [2015]; each quoting from People v Minor, 149 Misc 2d 846, 848 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 666 [1989]). Giving proper effect to the People's April 27, 2012 readiness statement, it is indisputable that the People complied with their speedy trial obligations with respect to the properly converted assault, criminal mischief, menacing and harassment charges.

[*2]THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concurI concur
Decision Date: September 29, 2015