People v. Agosto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Agosto

123 A.D.2d 637, 506 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60782

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 6, 1986·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.), rendered March 13, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The undisputed facts set forth in the sworn affidavits submitted to Criminal Term in connection with the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment constituted a sufficient basis upon which the court could decide that motion without a hearing (see, People v Gruden, 42 NY2d 214; People v Schlessel, 104 AD2d 501). Since the record establishes that the 2 Vi-year delay between the date of the robbery in question and the defendant’s arrest for his alleged participation in the robbery was justified under the circumstances and was not an attempt to gain any tactical advantage over him, there was no basis to grant the defendant’s motion on due process grounds (see, People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241; People v Thompson, 114 [638] AD2d 1050; People v Hoff, 110 AD2d 782). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Lawrence and Keeper, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.), rendered March 13, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The undisputed facts set forth in the sworn affidavits submitted to Criminal Term in connection with the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment constituted a sufficient basis upon which the court could decide that motion without a hearing (see, People v Gruden, 42 NY2d 214; People v Schlessel, 104 AD2d 501). Since the record establishes that the 2 Vi-year delay between the date of the robbery in question and the defendant’s arrest for his alleged participation in the robbery was justified under the circumstances and was not an attempt to gain any tactical advantage over him, there was no basis to grant the defendant’s motion on due process grounds (see, People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241; People v Thompson, 114 [638] AD2d 1050; People v Hoff, 110 AD2d 782). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Lawrence and Keeper, JJ., concur.

People v. Agosto, 123 A.D.2d 637, 506 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

123 A.D.2d 637 (People v. Agosto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related