People v. Selph (Chad)
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 51522(U) (People v. Selph (Chad)) 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.
Opinion
| People v Selph (Chad) |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 51522(U) |
| Decided on November 11, 2024 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 11, 2024
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, James, JJ.
570698/17
against
Chad Selph, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J., at speedy trial motion; Curtis Farber, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered October 3, 2017, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Lyle E. Frank, J., at speedy trial motion; Curtis Farber, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered October 3, 2017, affirmed.
Defendant forfeited review of his speedy trial claim by pleading guilty (see People v Suarez, 55 NY2d 940, 942 [1982]; People v Joyce, 226 AD3d 541 [2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 1019 [2024]). The current version of CPL 30.30(6), which permits defendants who pleaded guilty to raise statutory speedy trial claims on appeal, became effective after defendant was convicted and does not apply retroactively (see People v Rodriguez, 216 AD3d 436 [2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 999 [2023]; People v Lara—Medina, 195 AD3d 542 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 993 [2021]).
In any event, defendant did not preserve his statutory speedy trial claim, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Defendant made a generalized CPL 30.30 motion merely asserting the People's lack of readiness on various dates, and did not, by way of a reply or otherwise, challenge the People's specifically claimed exclusions (see People v Allard, 28 NY3d 41, 46—47 [2016]; People v Winston, 177 AD3d 524 [2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1164 [2020]). Nor did defendant make any specific assertions raising factual disputes that would require a hearing (see People v Rosa, 164 AD3d 1182, 1183 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1114 [2018]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 11, 2024
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 51522(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-selph-chad-nyappterm-2024.