You are here: / ADJOURNMENTS

Tag Archive for: ADJOURNMENTS

Defendant’s Inability to Articulate a Reason for the Withdrawal of His Plea Was a Proper Basis for Refusal of His Request for An Adjournment of Sentencing to Consider Withdrawal of the Plea

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined defendant’s request for an adjournment of sentencing to consider whether he should withdraw his plea was properly denied (despite the absence of prejudice to the People) because defendant was unable to articulate a reason for withdrawing the plea:

Whether to grant an adjournment is within Supreme Court’s discretion … . Based upon the colloquy at sentencing, defendant had more than a fair amount of time to speak with counsel regarding his interest in withdrawing his plea. Although defendant was out of custody for two months, having been released on his own recognizance following his plea allocution, the record reflects that he only contacted defense counsel the day before sentencing in order to discuss his plea concerns. Despite defense counsel’s inability to meet with defendant that day, defense counsel stated during sentencing that she had spoken with defendant that morning. People v Spears, 2014 NY Slip Op 08221, CtApp 11-25-14

 

,

Verdict Properly Set Aside Based Upon Trial Court’s Own Denial of Defendant’s Request for an Adjournment to Retain New Counsel/Criteria for Trial Court’s Setting Aside a Verdict Explained

The Fourth Department, after explaining the criteria for setting aside a verdict, ruled the trial court had properly set aside the verdict in this case due to the trial court’s own erroneous denial of defendant’s request for an adjournment to seek new counsel:

“Pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1), following the issuance of a verdict and before sentencing a court may set aside a verdict on ‘[a]ny ground appearing in the record which, if raised upon an appeal from a prospective judgment of conviction, would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court’ ” … . “The power granted a Trial Judge is, thus, far more limited than that of an intermediate appellate court, which is authorized to determine not only questions of law but issues of fact . . . , to reverse or modify a judgment when the verdict is against the weight of the evidence . . . , and to reverse ‘[a]s a matter of discretion in the interest of justice’ ”… . * * *

In our view, the court’s refusal to grant defendant’s request for an adjournment was “an abuse of discretion as a matter of law” and effectively denied defendant the fundamental right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing …   On the date scheduled for suppression hearings, defense counsel, who had been retained by defendant’s family while defendant was incarcerated, withdrew defendant’s requests for suppression and sought an expedited trial without defendant’s knowledge or consent.  At the next court appearance, defendant requested an adjournment of the expedited trial to afford him time in which to retain another attorney.  The court, in denying that request, did not afford defendant “[a] reasonable time and a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice”…, particularly in view of the fact that the trial was expedited without defendant’s knowledge or consent… .  Inasmuch as we conclude that defendant was denied the fundamental right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing, reversal of the judgment of conviction on that ground would be required as a matter of law upon an appeal therefrom (see CPL 330.30 [1]), and the court therefore properly set aside the verdict. People v Rohadfox, 1367, 4th Dept 2-7-14

 

Judge’s Refusal to Grant a One-Day Adjournment to Allow Defendant to Present a Witness (After the Judge Granted the People’s Request for a Missing-Witness Jury Instruction) Was Reversible Error

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the judge refused to grant defendant a one-day adjournment to bring in a witness after granting the People’s request for a missing-witness jury instruction:

Having granted the People’s request for the [missing witness] instruction, the court should have granted defendant a short adjournment. A missing witness issue “must be raised as soon as practicable so that the court can appropriately exercise its discretion and the parties can tailor their trial strategy”… . Here, the moving party raised the issue after defendant’s testimony, when the issue became apparent. The court should have then accorded the nonmoving party the opportunity to avoid the missing witness charge by calling the witness. Although defendant was willing to call the witness, the court effectively rendered the witness unavailable, thus negating the availability requirement for a missing witness charge.

The court apparently denied the adjournment on the ground that defendant should have anticipated the missing witness issue. However, an adjournment to the next day would have been reasonable under the circumstances. People v Manzi, 2014 NY Slip Op 00280, 1st Dept 1-16-14

 

No Evidence Defendant Agreed to Adjournment—Indictment Dismissed on Speedy Trial Grounds

In reversing County Court and dismissing the indictment on speedy trial grounds, the Third Department noted there was no evidence the defense agreed to an adjournment during the period another criminal proceeding against the defendant was ongoing:

There is no support in the record for the People’s unsubstantiated claim that “it was agreed and understood” that defendant consented to an adjournment or waiver from March 27, 2009 until July 17, 2009.  “Adjournments consented to by the defense must be clearly expressed to relieve the People of the responsibility for that portion of the delay” … .  “While a defendant may waive rights under CPL 30.30, the record here contains no evidence of any waiver, written or oral,” and the Court of Appeals has made clear that “prosecutors would be well advised to obtain unambiguous written waivers in situations like these” … . As the People failed to meet their burden of proving that the disputed 112-day period was not chargeable to them …, the People did not establish that they were ready for trial within the statutory six-month period (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]).  Therefore, defendant was entitled to dismissal of the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30. People v Smith, 104091, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy