People v. Shafer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shafer

175 A.D.2d 564, 572 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10061

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 12, 1991·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously af[565] firmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see, CPL 30.20). Although nearly 23 months elapsed between defendant’s arrest and his trial date, the record demonstrates that most of that time was attributable to court scheduling and delay in addressing his suppression motion, "an excuse which fweighs less heavily’ against the State” (People v Watts, 86 AD2d 964, 964-965, affd 57 NY2d 299; see, People v Johnson, 38 NY2d 271, 279). Moreover, defendant was not incarcerated during the delay, and he has failed to establish any substantial prejudice resulting from the delay. After considering all of the relevant factors (see, People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445), we find that defendant’s constitutional rights were not abridged (see, People v Watts, supra).

We have examined defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Finnerty, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously af[565] firmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see, CPL 30.20). Although nearly 23 months elapsed between defendant’s arrest and his trial date, the record demonstrates that most of that time was attributable to court scheduling and delay in addressing his suppression motion, "an excuse which fweighs less heavily’ against the State” (People v Watts, 86 AD2d 964, 964-965, affd 57 NY2d 299; see, People v Johnson, 38 NY2d 271, 279). Moreover, defendant was not incarcerated during the delay, and he has failed to establish any substantial prejudice resulting from the delay. After considering all of the relevant factors (see, People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445), we find that defendant’s constitutional rights were not abridged (see, People v Watts, supra).

We have examined defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Finnerty, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.

People v. Shafer, 175 A.D.2d 564, 572 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

175 A.D.2d 564 (People v. Shafer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related