People v. Capellan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Capellan

142 A.D.3d 923, 37 N.Y.S.3d 889

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2016

Docket1766 2012/13

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 142 A.D.3d 923 (People v. Capellan) 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. Capellan, 142 A.D.3d 923, 37 N.Y.S.3d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered November 14, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

By pleading guilty while his constitutional speedy trial motion remained undecided, defendant abandoned that claim and forfeited any appellate review (see People v Alexander, 19 NY3d 203, 219 [2012]; People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553 [1980]; People v Flemming, 27 AD3d 257 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 755 [2006]). Moreover, since defendant’s attorney declined to adopt this pro se motion, the court had no duty to entertain it (see People v Rodriguez, 95 NY2d 497, 502-503 [2000]). In any event, to the extent the available record would permit review, we find no violation of defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial (see generally People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered November 14, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

By pleading guilty while his constitutional speedy trial motion remained undecided, defendant abandoned that claim and forfeited any appellate review (see People v Alexander, 19 NY3d 203, 219 [2012]; People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553 [1980]; People v Flemming, 27 AD3d 257 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 755 [2006]). Moreover, since defendant’s attorney declined to adopt this pro se motion, the court had no duty to entertain it (see People v Rodriguez, 95 NY2d 497, 502-503 [2000]). In any event, to the extent the available record would permit review, we find no violation of defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial (see generally People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 923, 37 N.Y.S.3d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-capellan-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack