People v. Grafton

2017 NY Slip Op 6372, 153 A.D.3d 933, 60 N.Y.S.3d 436

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: August 30, 2017
• Docket: 2016-06086
• Status: Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered May 9, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“A criminal defendant’s right to a speedy trial is guaranteed both by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution (US Const 6th, 14th Amends) and by statute (CPL 30.20; Civil Rights Law § 12)” (People v Romeo, 12 NY3d 51, 55 [2009]). “Violation of this right results in dismissal of an indictment” (id. at 55; see Strunk v United States, 412 US 434, 439-440 [1973]; People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 444 [1975]). Here, by pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of his claims that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 (see People v Zeigler, 128 AD3d 737, 738 [2015]; People v Franco, 104 AD3d 790, 790 [2013]; People v Kidd, 100 AD3d 779, 779 [2012]) and pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (CPL 580.20, art III [a]; see People v Gooden, 151 AD2d 773, 774 [1989]; People v Cusick, 111 AD2d 251, 251 [1985]). Moreover, to the extent the defendant claims that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated, the contention is without merit (see People v Franco, 104 AD3d at 791).

The defendant’s contention that his application for a writ of habeas corpus was improperly denied is not properly before us on this appeal (see People v Lynch, 121 AD3d 717, 719 [2014]).

The defendant’s remaining contention was forfeited by the entry of his plea.

Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Connolly and Iannacci, JJ., concur.