NY appeals court vacates gun convictions over trial delay

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has vacated weapons convictions because of a speedy trial violation.

Defendant Tashad Beason pleaded guilty in December 2022, before state Supreme Court Justice E. Walsh Jr., to second- and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed the convictions, dismissed the indictment and sent the case back to Supreme Court.

Beason’s appellate attorney argued that state Supreme Court Justice Charles Schiano Jr. should have granted a defense motion seeking to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds.

“The People correctly concede that the court erred in denying the motion … so we now reverse,” the Fourth Department panel wrote.

In a felony case, such as Beason’s, the prosecution must announce readiness for trial within six months of the commencement of the action, according to the decision.

The statutory time period is based on the time elapsed between the filing of the first accusatory instrument and the prosecutor’s declaration of readiness, minus any periods that are excludable under the terms of the statute, and then adding any periods of delay attributable to the prosecution that are not eligible for exclusion, according to the decision.

When the defendant shows the existence of a delay greater than six months, the prosecution has the burden of proving that periods within that time should be excluded, the court wrote.

In Beason’s case, the prosecutor conceded that there were 168 days of pre-readiness delay chargeable to them, the court wrote.

The prosecution announced readiness in July 2021 and, subsequently, combined Huntley and Mapp hearings were held on Dec. 8, 2021.

After two Rochester Police Department officers testified at that hearing, the prosecutor told the judge that a third officer was “not allowed to come to court due to an ongoing investigation by the Attorney General’s Office,” according to the decision.

“The prosecutor said that he was unsure of who was telling the officer not to come to court,” according to the decision.

The hearing was adjourned until Jan. 10, 2022 —33 days later.

“On appeal, the People have correctly conceded that the 33-day adjournment to secure the officer’s testimony constitutes ‘a period of unreasonable delay’ and is chargeable to them, thus resulting in a total of more than six months of delay chargeable to them,” the court wrote.

“We therefore conclude that defendant’s … motion should have been granted and, as a result, the judgment must be reversed and the indictment must be dismissed,” the panel ruled.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035