Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York v. Shafeena Shaw

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Term, First Department


June 27, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
RESPONDENT,
v.
SHAFEENA SHAW,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), rendered November 21, 2008, after a non-jury trial, convicting her of three counts of attempted identity theft in the third degree and three counts of attempted petit larceny, and imposing sentence.

Per curiam.

People v Shaw (Shafeena)

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 27, 2011

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ

Appeal from judgment of conviction (Ellen M. Coin, J.), rendered November 21, 2008, held in abeyance and matter remanded for determination of defendant's speedy trial motion.

The motion court's summary denial of defendant's timely filed speedy trial motion was improper. Where a defendant timely moves to dismiss on CPL 30.30 grounds, alleging "an unexcused delay in excess of the statutory 90-day minimum, the burden shifts to the People to demonstrate that the delay is not properly chargeable to them" (People v Coyle, 20 Misc 3d 127[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51263[U] [2008]; see People v Berkowitz, 50 NY2d 333, 349 [1980]). Since defendant's motion was facially sufficient (see CPL 170.30[1][e], [2]), it should not have been summarily rejected (see People v Oliveri, 46 AD3d 267 [2007]; People v Gaillard, 252 AD2d 357, 358 [1998]), especially in light of the court's determination that 87 days are chargeable for speedy trial purposes.

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments with respect to the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and find them lacking in merit. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: June 27, 2011

20110627

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.