People v Edobo (Humphrey)

[*1] People v Edobo (Humphrey) 2004 NY Slip Op 51054(U) Decided on September 21, 2004 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 21, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., ARONIN and PATTERSON, JJ.
x

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, NO. 2003-986 K CR DECIDED

against

HUMPHREY EDOBO, Appellant. x

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Criminal Court, Kings County

(J. Burke, J. - Judgment; J. Carter, J. - Order), rendered June 5, 2003, convicting him of two counts of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26) and imposing sentence.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

We reject defendant's contention that he was denied his statutory speedy trial right (CPL 30.30 [1] [b]). Periods not chargeable to the People include delay attributed to the adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) (CPL 30.30 [4] [h]), defendant's
pretrial motions, including the motion to vacate the ACD adjudication, and the periods of time the motions were under the court's consideration (CPL 30.30 [4] [a]; People v Worley, 66 NY2d 523 [1985]; People v Moorhead, 61 NY2d 851 [1984]; People v
Hamilton, 187 AD2d 451 [1992]), the adjournments for pre-trial discovery (CPL 30.30 [4] [a]; People v McCray, 238 AD2d 442 [1997]; People v Jones, 105 AD2d 179 [1984]), and the adjournment requested by defendant (CPL 30.30 [4] [b]; People v Friscia, 51 NY2d 845 [1980]; People v Lee, 217 AD2d 637 [1995]). The adjournment to allow the People to prepare for trial following the court's decision on defendant's pre-trial motion to vacate the ACD and to reinstate the accusatory instrument for trial likewise should not be charged to the People, notwithstanding the court's apparently mistaken impression, which neither party sought to dispel, that the adjournment was also necessary to permit the People to convert the complaint to an information, which conversion had, in fact, occurred some time before (see People v Diaz, 275 AD2d 652 [*2][2000]; People ex rel. Mayfield v McGrane, 234 AD2d 88 [1996]; People v Silas, 233 AD2d 103 [1966]). Accordingly, after subtracting the foregoing time periods, the People did not exceed the statutory time to declare their trial readiness (CPL 30.30 [1] [b]).
Decision Date: September 21, 2004