People v. Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Taylor

149 A.D.2d 984, 543 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6077

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

DecidedApril 14, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 984 (People v. Taylor) 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. Taylor, 149 A.D.2d 984, 543 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6077 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant waived any claim that he was deprived of a fair trial based upon pretrial publicity by pleading guilty before the jury selection process was complete or had become protracted (see, People v Smith, 63 NY2d 41, 69, cert denied 469 US 1227; People v Parker, 60 NY2d 714, 715; People v Green, 146 AD2d 281). Only the other issue raised by defendant requires comment. Defendant contends that a reversal is required because delay in the appellate process denied him due process of law. We reject this contention because defendant cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any delay (see, People v Cousart, 58 NY2d 62; People v Pratt, 149 AD2d 956; People v Gaines, 143 AD2d 520, lv denied 73 NY2d 855). We have reviewed the other claims made by defendant and find each to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Kennedy, J. — promoting prostitution, second degree; assault, third degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant waived any claim that he was deprived of a fair trial based upon pretrial publicity by pleading guilty before the jury selection process was complete or had become protracted (see, People v Smith, 63 NY2d 41, 69, cert denied 469 US 1227; People v Parker, 60 NY2d 714, 715; People v Green, 146 AD2d 281). Only the other issue raised by defendant requires comment. Defendant contends that a reversal is required because delay in the appellate process denied him due process of law. We reject this contention because defendant cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any delay (see, People v Cousart, 58 NY2d 62; People v Pratt, 149 AD2d 956; People v Gaines, 143 AD2d 520, lv denied 73 NY2d 855). We have reviewed the other claims made by defendant and find each to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Kennedy, J. — promoting prostitution, second degree; assault, third degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 984, 543 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-taylor-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack