People v. LaCart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. LaCart

235 A.D.2d 291, 652 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 475

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 21, 1997·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J., at speedy trial motion; Frederic Berman, J., at plea and sentence), rendered July 12, 1993, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s constitutional speedy trial motion was properly denied. Although labeled as a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of, inter alia, constitutional violations of defendant’s right to a speedy trial, the motion failed to address the constitutional issues (see, People v Lomax, 50 NY2d 351). Defendant failed to preserve his present claims, and failed to develop a factual record sufficient to establish the merits of such claims (People v Charleston, 54 NY2d 622). In any event, were this Court to review the constitutional issue on the present record, we would find it to be without merit (People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J., at speedy trial motion; Frederic Berman, J., at plea and sentence), rendered July 12, 1993, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s constitutional speedy trial motion was properly denied. Although labeled as a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of, inter alia, constitutional violations of defendant’s right to a speedy trial, the motion failed to address the constitutional issues (see, People v Lomax, 50 NY2d 351). Defendant failed to preserve his present claims, and failed to develop a factual record sufficient to establish the merits of such claims (People v Charleston, 54 NY2d 622). In any event, were this Court to review the constitutional issue on the present record, we would find it to be without merit (People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

People v. LaCart, 235 A.D.2d 291, 652 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

235 A.D.2d 291 (People v. LaCart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related