People v. Hamilton, 46 N.Y.2d 932 (1979)

To comply with speedy trial requirements, the prosecution must communicate their readiness for trial on the record to the court; merely claiming readiness in response to a motion to dismiss is insufficient.

Summary

This case addresses the prosecution’s responsibility to demonstrate readiness for trial under New York’s speedy trial statute. Hamilton was charged with a felony, and more than six months elapsed between the filing of the felony complaint and the prosecution’s readiness for trial. The Court of Appeals held that the prosecution failed to adequately demonstrate its readiness for trial because it only asserted such readiness in an affidavit responding to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and not on the record to the court. Therefore, the delay was not excludable, and the indictment was dismissed.

Facts

On November 13, 1975, a felony complaint was filed against Hamilton.

The People claim to have been ready for trial in May 1976.

On November 26, 1976, the People were actually ready for trial, one year and 13 days after the felony complaint was filed.

Hamilton moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing a denial of his right to a speedy trial.

The People opposed the motion, claiming they were ready in May 1976 and offered excuses for the delay.

Procedural History

The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment based on a denial of a speedy trial.

The Appellate Division order was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the indictment.

Issue(s)

Whether the People’s delay of one year and 13 days between the filing of the felony complaint and their readiness for trial violated CPL 30.30(1)(a), requiring dismissal of the indictment.

Whether the People’s assertion of readiness for trial, made for the first time in an affidavit responding to a motion to dismiss, is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of communicating readiness to the court on the record.

Holding

Yes, because the period exceeded six months, and the delay was not sufficiently excludable under CPL 30.30(4).

No, because to sustain an assertion of readiness, the People must communicate readiness for trial to the court on the record when ready to proceed.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that under CPL 30.30(1)(a), the People must be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of a criminal action when a felony is charged. Since the delay exceeded six months, the burden shifted to the People to demonstrate that enough time was excludable under CPL 30.30(4) to bring the delay within the statutory limit.

The only period the court found excludable was from May 10, 1976, to August 10, 1976, due to pretrial motions made by the defendant. The court rejected the People’s argument that the need for further investigation excused the delay, citing People v. Washington, 43 N.Y.2d 772 (1977).

The court emphasized that the People’s claim of readiness in May 1976 was insufficient because they failed to communicate this readiness to the court on the record. The court explicitly stated: “To sustain such an assertion, the People must communicate readiness for trial to the court on the record when ready to proceed. It is insufficient, as a matter of law, to inform the court of such a claim for the first time in an affidavit submitted in response to a motion to dismiss the indictment.” The court cited United States v. Pierro, 478 F.2d 386, to support this proposition.

The court also underscored that the right to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30 is not contingent on the defendant’s readiness for trial or a showing of prejudice resulting from the delay. This reinforces the prosecution’s independent duty to be ready for trial within the statutory timeframe and to properly communicate that readiness to the court.