People v. Mogavero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mogavero

184 A.D.2d 663

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

DecidedJune 15, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 663 (People v. Mogavero) 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. Mogavero, 184 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered November 3, 1989, convicting Mm of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied Ms right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30. After subtracting periods of delay directly resulting from the defendant’s pretrial motions, delays resulting from the defendant’s lack of counsel, the victim’s hospitalization, and other proceedings involving the defendant, the total time chargeable to the People is well witMn the permitted six calendar months (see, CPL 30.30 [4]).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Eiber, JJ., concur.

§§

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered November 3, 1989, convicting Mm of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied Ms right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30. After subtracting periods of delay directly resulting from the defendant’s pretrial motions, delays resulting from the defendant’s lack of counsel, the victim’s hospitalization, and other proceedings involving the defendant, the total time chargeable to the People is well witMn the permitted six calendar months (see, CPL 30.30 [4]).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Eiber, JJ., concur.

§§

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mogavero-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack