| People v Clinkscales |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 02894 [171 AD3d 1086] |
| April 17, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Curtis Clinkscales, Appellant. |
Janet E. Sabel, New York, NY (Michael C. Taglieri and Justine M. Luongo), forappellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Antara D. Kanth of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gregory L.Lasak, J.), rendered June 10, 2009, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the firstdegree, and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
As the complainant was returning home from work in the early morning hours of January 10,1996, a masked man forced the complainant to perform oral sex on him and then engaged inforcible vaginal sex with her. Within a matter of hours, the complainant went to the hospitalwhere she was examined and a rape kit was completed. It was later determined, using theCombined DNA Index System, a national database of the DNA profiles of convicted offenders,that the defendant's DNA matched the DNA profile obtained from the rape kit. A criminalist forthe New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner testified at trial that the DNA from thevaginal swab in the rape kit matched the defendant's DNA with an accuracy greater than one in atrillion.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying the defendant's motions to dismissthe indictment, which were made on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to aspeedy trial. Where a defendant is charged with a felony, the People must be ready for trialwithin six months of the commencement of the criminal action, not including excludable periods(see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]; [4]). Here, the defendant's contentions, except to the extent thatthey relate to the period of time from January 10, 2007, to May 9, 2007, are unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, they are without merit."[C]omputing the time elapsed between the filing of the first accusatory instrument and thePeople's declaration of readiness, subtracting any periods of delay that are excludable under theterms of the statute and then adding to the result any postreadiness periods of delay that areactually attributable to the People and are ineligible for an exclusion" results in a period of lessthan six months (People v Cortes, 80 NY2d 201, 208 [1992]; see CPL 30.30).Thus, the defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial was not violated (see People v Owens, 138 AD3d1035 [2016]; cf. People v Cortes, 80 NY2d 201 [1992]). Moreover, his constitutionalright to a speedy trial also was not violated (see People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445[1975]).
The defendant's contention that the criminalist's testimony about the DNA evidencepresented at trial violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment isunpreserved for appellate review. In any event, this contention is without merit. The criminalist'stestimony indicated that she generated the DNA profile and independently analyzed raw data, asopposed to functioning as " 'a conduit for the conclusions of others' " (People v Austin, 30 NY3d 98, 105[2017], quoting People v John, 27NY3d 294, 315 [2016]; see Peoplev Pascall, 164 AD3d 1265, 1266 [2018]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Leventhal, J.P., Roman, Maltese andIannacci, JJ., concur.