People v. Ortiz (Delby)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ortiz (Delby)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 29, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 50380(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Ortiz (Delby) (People v. Ortiz (Delby)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Ortiz (Delby), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Delby Ortiz, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Steven J. Hornstein, J., at plea; William McGuire, J. at sentencing), rendered February 18, 2015, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Steven J. Hornstein, J., at plea; William McGuire, J. at sentencing), rendered February 18, 2015, reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.

Although defendant has not preserved his claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, we exercise our power to review it in the interest of justice (see People v Walker, 141 AD2d 991 [1998], lv denied 72 NY2d 962 [1988]). Examining the factors set forth in People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445 (1975), we agree with defendant that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see CPL 30.20). The 43-month delay between defendant's arrest and his plea of guilty was excessive (see People v Johnson, 38 NY2d 271 [1975]) and the People failed to establish good cause therefor (see People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241, 254 [1978]; People v DeJesus, 52 Misc 3d 138[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51095[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016, lv denied 28 NY3d 1072 [2016]). The underlying Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 charges, though serious, are relatively simple, and this case did not require any unusual attention or complex preparation to ensure its prompt disposition. In the circumstances, dismissal is the appropriate remedy, despite the absence of any actual prejudice to defendant (see Taranovich, 37 NY2d at 446).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 29, 2017

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Delby Ortiz, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Steven J. Hornstein, J., at plea; William McGuire, J. at sentencing), rendered February 18, 2015, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Steven J. Hornstein, J., at plea; William McGuire, J. at sentencing), rendered February 18, 2015, reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.

Although defendant has not preserved his claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, we exercise our power to review it in the interest of justice (see People v Walker, 141 AD2d 991 [1998], lv denied 72 NY2d 962 [1988]). Examining the factors set forth in People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445 (1975), we agree with defendant that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see CPL 30.20). The 43-month delay between defendant's arrest and his plea of guilty was excessive (see People v Johnson, 38 NY2d 271 [1975]) and the People failed to establish good cause therefor (see People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241, 254 [1978]; People v DeJesus, 52 Misc 3d 138[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51095[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016, lv denied 28 NY3d 1072 [2016]). The underlying Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 charges, though serious, are relatively simple, and this case did not require any unusual attention or complex preparation to ensure its prompt disposition. In the circumstances, dismissal is the appropriate remedy, despite the absence of any actual prejudice to defendant (see Taranovich, 37 NY2d at 446).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 29, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Ortiz (Delby), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ortiz-delby-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack