People v. Adams
Cases that cite this one
27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- James Barber v. Charles Scully, Superintendent, Greenhaven Correctional Facility (2d Cir. 1984)
- People v. Juhans (New York Supreme Court 1984)
- People v. Taylor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- People v. Walker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- People v. Woods (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Moissett (N.Y. 1990)
- People v. Martinez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- People v. Boyd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- People v. McShaw (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- People v. Ruiz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- People v. Trevino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- People v. Jordan (N.Y. 1984)
- People v. Lawrence (N.Y. 1984)
- People v. Pratt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- People v. Paquette (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- People v. Allyn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- People v. Clary (N.Y. 1981)
- People v. Rodriguez (N.Y. 1980)
- People v. Crump (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- People v. Watts (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- People v. Adams (N.Y. 1979)
- People v. Primmer (N.Y. 1979)
- People v. Hardy (N.Y. 1979)
- People v. Lieberman (N.Y. 1979)
- People v. Whisby (N.Y. 1979)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant’s sole contention on this appeal is that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was a denial of his right to a speedy trial.
On April 15, 1968, defendant was arrested and arraigned on charges of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law, § 140.20) and possession of burglar’s tools (Penal Law, § 140.35), crimes allegedly committed earlier that day. He was indicted on these *607 charges, as well as for grand larceny, on February 26, 1970. Although defendant had been at liberty for most of the period preceding indictment, thereafter he was incarcerated. His motion to dismiss on the ground that the prosecution had failed to find an indictment (former Code Grim Pro, § 667) was denied as moot on May 12, 1970.
In January of 1971, defendant served a pro se motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute upon the District Attorney, premised upon an alleged denial of a speedy trial. Nothing in the record indicates that the motion was docketed with the court for judicial disposition. Thereafter, on April 12, 1972, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the third degree in satisfaction of the instant indictment and another charging him with possession of a weapon. At the plea and sentencing proceedings, no mention of the pro se motion for dismissal was made.
In the Appellate Division, defendant, for the first time, asserted his alleged deprivation but the judgment was affirmed, with two Justices dissenting and being of the view that the case should be remitted for a hearing on the reasonableness of the delay.
The right to a speedy trial may be waived but the waiver must be both knowingly and voluntarily made (People v White, 32 NY2d 393, 399). It can hardly be said that defendant, in light of his own motion to dismiss, was unaware of his right and, not having raised the issue in the court of first instance, there is no error to be reviewed.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.