People v. Holley

2025 NY Slip Op 05747

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: October 16, 2025
• Docket: Ind No. 2286/18; Appeal No. 4973; Case No. 2022-02962
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Holley (2025 NY Slip Op 05747)

People v Holley

2025 NY Slip Op 05747

Decided on October 16, 2025

Appellate Division, First Department

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

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: October 16, 2025
Before: Kern, J.P., Scarpulla, Pitt-Burke, O'Neill Levy, Michael, JJ.

Ind No. 2286/18|Appeal No. 4973|Case No. 2022-02962|

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Brandon Holley, Defendant-Appellant.

Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jane Merrill of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Andrew H. Chung of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Abraham L. Clott, J.), rendered June 24, 2022, as amended August 5, 2022, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

Upon considering the Taranovich factors, we conclude that defendant was not denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]). Although defendant was incarcerated for nearly four years between the date of his arraignment and the date that he pleaded guilty, that time period was satisfactorily explained, and little of it was attributable to the People. A substantial portion of the delay was caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the judicial system (see People v Park, 227 AD3d 624 [2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 972 [2024]). Much of the delay resulted from adjournments requested by the defense to respond to motions, for new counsel to review the voluminous discovery materials and for preparation of an expert report, or for possible disposition or other reasons not attributable to the People. We further find that defendant has not made an adequate showing of specific prejudice.

Defendant made a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545 [2019], cert denied 589 US —, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]), which forecloses review of his claim that his sentence is excessive. In any event, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 16, 2025