People v. Graham (Kenneth)

73 Misc. 3d 128(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50905(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: September 28, 2021
• Docket: 570572/19
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Graham (2021 NY Slip Op 50905(U)) [*1]

People v Graham (Kenneth)

2021 NY Slip Op 50905(U) [73 Misc 3d 128(A)]

Decided on September 28, 2021

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 28, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Brigantti, Hagler, JJ.
570572/19

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Kenneth Graham, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Laurie Peterson, J.), rendered April 9, 2019, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Laurie Peterson, J.), rendered April 9, 2019, affirmed.

Defendant's claim that counsel was ineffective because he failed to file a constitutional speedy trial motion is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Joaquin, 150 AD3d 618 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1128 [2017]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claim may not be addressed on appeal (see People v Obert, 1 AD3d 631 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 764 [2004]). In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]). Defendant has not shown that counsel's failure to make a constitutional speedy trial motion was objectively unreasonable in this case, or resulted in any prejudice (see People v Flow, 149 AD3d 647, 648-649 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1091 [2017]; People v Almanzar, 57 Misc 3d 159[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51688[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 31 NY3d 980 [2018]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 28, 2021