People v. Camarda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Camarda

54 A.D.2d 567, 387 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13896

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 567 (People v. Camarda) 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. Camarda, 54 A.D.2d 567, 387 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 20, 1975 (the date of sentence reflected on the clerk’s extract of the minutes is July 14, 1975), convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Since the nearly three-year delay in the prosecution of the defendant was, for the most part, attributable to his own conduct&emdash; confusion because of his incarceration for another crime under a false name, [568]*568changes of counsel, etc.—it cannot be said that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, albeit his plea of guilty was not a waiver of that right (see People v Blakley, 34 NY2d 311). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 20, 1975 (the date of sentence reflected on the clerk’s extract of the minutes is July 14, 1975), convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Since the nearly three-year delay in the prosecution of the defendant was, for the most part, attributable to his own conduct&emdash; confusion because of his incarceration for another crime under a false name, [568]*568changes of counsel, etc.—it cannot be said that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, albeit his plea of guilty was not a waiver of that right (see People v Blakley, 34 NY2d 311). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 567, 387 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-camarda-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack