Opinion ID: 2041973
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: People v Parris

Text: Peter Parris was convicted of burglary and other charges after a jury trial in May 1998, and was sentenced on July 8, 1998. He filed a timely notice of appeal, but the prosecution of the appeal was long delayed. When the record on appeal was finally filed in the Appellate Division on May 8, 2001, it contained an affidavit from a court reporter saying that she could not locate her notes for proceedings held on April 30 and May 4, 1998. A worksheet prepared in Supreme Court shows that on April 30, 1998 the court denied Parris's motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 and heard his motion under People v Sandoval (34 NY2d 371 [1974]), and that on May 4, 1998 a jury was selected and sworn. Parris was or should have been aware, no later than May of 2001, that the minutes of these proceedings were missing. There is no indication that Parris reacted to this information in any way until he filed his brief in the Appellate Division some 18 months later, on November 12, 2002. Point one of the brief argued that his conviction should be reversed, or a reconstruction hearing ordered, because the minutes had been lost. On February 21, 2003, the prosecution moved to have the appeal removed from the Appellate Division calendar until such time as the defendant either moves for reconstruction of the court file or stipulates that he cannot make the showing necessary to obtain one. Parris's counsel filed an affirmation in opposition to the motion, arguing that the prosecution, not the defense, should bear the burden of providing an adequate record. The Appellate Division denied the motion without prejudice to the People raising the argument in their respondent's brief on the appeal. Later, the Appellate Division affirmed Parris's conviction, saying that he has not established that he is entitled to either reversal of his conviction or a reconstruction hearing, since he has not shown that any appealable issue may exist with respect to those proceedings. (1 AD3d 134, 134 [2003].) We affirm on grounds different from those stated by the Appellate Division.