| People v Prunier |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08185 [100 AD3d 1269] |
| November 29, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alicia C.Prunier, Appellant. |
—[*1] Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Susan Rider-Ulacco of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Buckley,J.), rendered May 2, 2011, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crime of assaultin the third degree.
Based upon her involvement in pulling a woman from a vehicle and beating her, defendantwas charged in a felony complaint filed on January 26, 2010. On July 15, 2010, a grand juryreturned a four-count indictment that, along with the People's statement of readiness, was filed inCounty Court on Friday, July 23, 2010. That same day, the court notified defense counsel thatarraignment would occur on August 2, 2010. On Monday, July 26, 2010, defendant and counselwere given notice that her arraignment would occur on July 27, 2010, which it did. County Courtdenied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based upon a violation of her right to aspeedy trial. Thereafter, she waived her right to a jury trial and proceeded to a bench trial onstipulated facts. The court found her guilty of assault in the third degree and sentenced her to twoweekends in jail and three years of probation. Defendant appeals.[FN1][*2]
County Court properly denied defendant's speedy trialmotion. When a defendant is accused of a felony, the court must grant a motion to dismiss onspeedy trial grounds if the People are not ready for trial within six months of the commencementof a criminal action, which occurs with the filing of the first accusatory instrument (seeCPL 1.20 [17]; 30.30 [1] [a]). In determining the end date for this six-month period, we excludethe day that the accusatory instrument was filed and begin counting on the following day (seePeople v Stirrup, 91 NY2d 434, 437 n 2 [1998]; People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767[1987]; People v Gause, 286 AD2d 557, 558-559 [2001]; but see People v Goss,87 NY2d 792, 795-796 [1996] [calculating the end date without excluding the commencementdate, but doing so in the factual recitation and not addressing the issue]). Thus, the People wererequired to announce their readiness for trial by July 27, 2010.
Although the People filed a statement of readiness on July 23, 2010,[FN2]objectively establishing their readiness for trial (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]; People vSmith, 82 NY2d 676, 678 [1993]), a statement of readiness will be considered meaninglessand the indictment must be dismissed if arraignment within the statutory time period isimpossible (see People v England, 84 NY2d 1, 5 [1994]; People v Gause, 286AD2d at 559). When an indictment has been filed in a matter where a felony complaint ispending and the defendant is out on bail, the superior court must secure the defendant'sappearance for arraignment on the indictment by directing the defendant, "upon at least two daysnotice to the defendant" and his or her attorney, to appear on a specified date (CPL 210.10 [2])."Thus, a statement of readiness made contemporaneously with the filing of the indictment can beeffective to stop the 'speedy trial' clock if the indictment is filed at least two days before the CPL30.30 period ends" (People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 798 [1998] [citations omitted];see People v Fields, 262 AD2d 793, 794 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1017[1999]).
Because Saturdays and Sundays are excluded when calculating two days notice (seeGeneral Construction Law § 20), the question becomes whether the arraignment on "atleast two days notice" pursuant to CPL 210.10 (2) may be conducted on the second counted dayafter notice is given or if it may not occur until the third counted day. Prior cases simultaneouslyapplying CPL 30.30 (1) (a) and 210.10 (2) have permitted arraignment on the second dayfollowing notice (see People vMerck, 63 AD3d 1374, 1375-1376 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 861 [2009];People v Fields, 262 AD2d at 794; People v McGrath, 223 AD2d 759, 760[1996]). Similarly, the prearraignment statement of readiness here was valid because arraignmentwas possible on July 27, 2010, the second counted day after the indictment was filed and the lastday [*3]within the six-month statutory period (see People vMcGrath, 223 AD2d at 760; compare People v England, 84 NY2d at 4).[FN3]An indictment need not be dismissed even if the arraignment does not occur within the six-monthperiod, as long as it was possible and readiness was announced within that time (see People vGoss, 87 NY2d at 796-797).
Here, although not required, the arraignment did occur within that period. On July 23, 2010,County Court informed defendant's counsel that the arraignment would occur on August 2, 2010.On July 26, 2010, the court informed counsel that the arraignment date had been changed to July27, 2010. Although the later communication provided less than two days notice (see CPL210.10 [2]), the original communication was provided more than two days prior to the actualarraignment. Additionally, defendant and counsel appeared at the arraignment, and defendant didnot complain to County Court about the change in date or lack of sufficient notice. Hence, thecourt did not err in denying defendant's speedy trial motion.
Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Spain and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Footnote 1: Defendant only agreed to waiveher right to a jury trial, was not assured an agreed-upon sentence, and was not informed of anddid not knowingly agree to waive any other rights (see People v Brooks, 23 AD3d 847, 848 [2005], lv denied 6NY3d 810 [2006]; compare People vNelson, 51 AD3d 1137, 1137 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 739 [2008]; Peoplev Harler, 296 AD2d 712, 713-714 [2002]). Under the circumstances, defendant's agreementto proceed to a trial on stipulated facts was not "the functional equivalent of a guilty plea," whichwould preclude her from having her speedy trial claim reviewed on appeal (People vHarler, 296 AD2d at 714; compare People v Nelson, 51 AD3d at 1137).
Footnote 2: The People announced readinessagain at arraignment on July 27, 2010.
Footnote 3: July 23, 2010 is excluded as theday the indictment was filed and July 24 and 25, 2010 are excluded because they were a Saturdayand Sunday (see General Construction Law § 20). July 26, 2010 is the first countedday and July 27, 2010 is the second counted day.