People v. Bencosme

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bencosme

191 A.D.2d 639, 595 N.Y.S.2d 221

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 22, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 639 (People v. Bencosme) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bencosme, 191 A.D.2d 639, 595 N.Y.S.2d 221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.), rendered April 30, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have examined the record and find that the defendant failed to move for dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds and therefore any claim of error with respect thereto is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, we find that the defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Appellate review of the remaining issues raised by the defendant was effectively waived by him as part of his plea bargain. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Pizzuto, 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, Queens County (Joy, J.), rendered April 30, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have examined the record and find that the defendant failed to move for dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds and therefore any claim of error with respect thereto is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, we find that the defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Appellate review of the remaining issues raised by the defendant was effectively waived by him as part of his plea bargain. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 639, 595 N.Y.S.2d 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bencosme-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack