court’s dismissal was due to be reversed especially because Cruz did not assert a speedy-trial violation. In Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 523 N.E.2d 297, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21 (1988), the complaining witness could not be located on the day of trial and the people requested an adjournment or continuance; the trial court denied the motion and dismissed the charges. The appellate court reversed, stating: “The power of the trial court to deny the People further adjournment is not disputed; the error lies in the corrective action it took after it did so. Trial courts are vested with statutory power to dismiss indictments, of course, but the power is not unlimited.” 71 N.Y.2d at 570, 523 N.E.2d at 301, 528 N.Y.S.2d at 25. See also Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 237 S.W.3d 575 (Ky.Ct.App.2007) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. King, 932 A.2d 948
holding that district court lacked authority to dismiss charges of driving under the influence reckless driving operating a motor vehicle without a seatbelt and operating a motor vehicle without insurance without states consent where dismissal was at gonzalezs request based on absence of arresting officer holding that state has jurisdiction to prosecute a nonindian for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol within the boundary of an indian reservation holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle  holding that assault conviction for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing serious bodily injury to the person of another with the motor vehicle qualified as a crime of violence under ussg  4b12a holding police officer had probable cause to believe defendant was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol