People v. Vidal

85 A.D.2d 701, 445 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16529
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 28, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 85 A.D.2d 701 (People v. Vidal) 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. Vidal, 85 A.D.2d 701, 445 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, [702]*702Kings County (McShane, J.), rendered March 9, 1977, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The defendant contends that his motion to dismiss Indictment Nos. 599/74 and 600/74 was not decided and thus was denied sub silentio. The said pro se motion to dismiss the indictments was in fact submitted to Criminal Term, Part I, on February 24, 1977 by the Legal Aid Society, the same date that defendant’s change of plea was entered, and the order of Criminal Term (Cooper, J.), dated March 2,1977, denied defendant’s motion. Defendant’s failure to raise the issue included in said motion at the time of his plea or at the time of his sentence constituted a knowing waiver of his right to assert the alleged violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (see CPL 580.20). In any event, violation of the agreement on detainers, even if established, is not a jurisdictional defect which may survive a guilty plea (People v Palumbo, 78 AD2d 684; People v Primmer, 59 AD2d 221, affd 46 NY2d 1048). In addition, the record fails to support any violation of the agreement on detainers. None of the jurisdictions wherein indictments were pending utilized the provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers prior to November 10,1976, the date the defendant was voluntarily surrendered to the Federal authorities by the State of New York (cf. United States v Mauro, 436 US 340). Cohalan, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Pizetsky
4 Misc. 3d 681 (New York County Courts, 2004)
People v. Madden
234 A.D.2d 394 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Bundy
186 A.D.2d 1042 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Gooden
151 A.D.2d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Cusick
111 A.D.2d 251 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Crossen
127 Misc. 2d 34 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)
People v. Aloma
92 A.D.2d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
People v. Lambert
92 A.D.2d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 A.D.2d 701, 445 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vidal-nyappdiv-1981.