People v. Thill, 75 N.Y.2d 895 (1990)
A motion to dismiss based on a defect in the accusatory instrument is waived if not made within the statutory time limit for pretrial motions, unless an extension is granted.
Summary
Defendant Thill was convicted in Town Court of speeding and driving while intoxicated. He appealed to the County Court, which reversed both convictions. The Court of Appeals considered whether the County Court properly dismissed the speeding conviction based on an insufficient supporting deposition, given that Thill’s motion to dismiss was untimely under CPL 255.20(1). The Court of Appeals held that because the motion was filed beyond the statutory deadline without a request for an extension, the Town Court’s denial of the motion was proper. The Court of Appeals reinstated the speeding conviction.
Facts
The defendant was arrested and charged with speeding and driving while intoxicated. The defendant was arraigned. More than three months after his arraignment, the defendant moved to dismiss the speeding charge, arguing the supporting deposition was insufficient because it failed to specify the speed limit he allegedly violated. The defendant did not request an extension of time to file the motion.
Procedural History
The Town Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss as untimely. The defendant was convicted of both speeding and driving while intoxicated in the Town Court. The Chautauqua County Court reversed both convictions. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the County Court erred in dismissing the speeding conviction when the defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed outside the statutory time limit for pre-trial motions without an extension, based on an alleged defect in the supporting deposition.
Holding
Yes, because CPL 255.20(1) requires pre-trial motions to be filed within forty-five days of arraignment, or within such additional time as the court may fix upon application of the defendant, and the defendant did not comply with this requirement.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the procedural requirements of CPL 255.20(1), which sets a deadline for pre-trial motions. The court emphasized that the defendant’s motion to dismiss the speeding charge was made over three months after his arraignment. The court noted that the defendant failed to request an extension of time to file the motion, and therefore, the Town Court properly denied the motion as untimely. The Court relied on People v. Key, 45 NY2d 111, 116, which reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines for pre-trial motions. The Court stated, “CPL 255.20 (1) provides that ‘all pre-trial motions shall be served or filed within forty-five days after arraignment * * * or within such additional time as the court may fix upon application of the defendant’. Defendant’s motion to dismiss was made over three months after his arraignment and he did not request an extension of time. Hence, the Town Court properly denied defendant’s motion as untimely”. By reinstating the speeding conviction, the Court reinforced the principle that procedural rules must be followed, and failure to comply with statutory deadlines can result in waiver of legal arguments.