People v. Branch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Branch

281 A.D.2d 427, 721 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2075

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 427 (People v. Branch) 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. Branch, 281 A.D.2d 427, 721 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered July 6, 1999, convicting him of [428]*428burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) a resentence of the same court, imposed February 24, 2000.

Ordered that the judgment and resentence are affirmed.

The defendant’s remarks at the time of his original sentencing on July 6, 1999, did not constitute a motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis of an unreasonable delay in sentencing. Accordingly, the defendant’s contention that the indictment should be dismissed for this reason is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Richardson, 262 AD2d 427; People v Marshall, 228 AD2d 15; People v Thompson, 193 AD2d 841). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered July 6, 1999, convicting him of [428]*428burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) a resentence of the same court, imposed February 24, 2000.

Ordered that the judgment and resentence are affirmed.

The defendant’s remarks at the time of his original sentencing on July 6, 1999, did not constitute a motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis of an unreasonable delay in sentencing. Accordingly, the defendant’s contention that the indictment should be dismissed for this reason is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Richardson, 262 AD2d 427; People v Marshall, 228 AD2d 15; People v Thompson, 193 AD2d 841). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 427, 721 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-branch-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack