People v. Woodhouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Woodhouse

35 A.D.3d 968, 825 N.Y.S.2d 321

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 968 (People v. Woodhouse) 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. Woodhouse, 35 A.D.3d 968, 825 N.Y.S.2d 321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Kane, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered August 26, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged by felony complaint, and later by indictment, with attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. After County Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He now appeals, asserting that his statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights were denied.

We affirm. Defendant, by pleading guilty, waived his right to appellate review of his argument regarding his CPL 30.30 speedy trial right (see People v Cintron, 7 AD3d 827, 828 [2004]). Although defendant’s claim of denial of his constitutional right to a speedy trial survives his guilty plea, considering the factors set forth in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]), defendant has not demonstrated that this right was violated (see People v Cintron, supra at 828). Even accepting defendant’s timeline, he committed a serious crime of selling almost an ounce of cocaine, the delay was not extensive, he was released on bail two days after his arrest and no prejudice has been demonstrated.

[969]*969Carpinello, J.P., Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Kane, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered August 26, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged by felony complaint, and later by indictment, with attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. After County Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He now appeals, asserting that his statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights were denied.

We affirm. Defendant, by pleading guilty, waived his right to appellate review of his argument regarding his CPL 30.30 speedy trial right (see People v Cintron, 7 AD3d 827, 828 [2004]). Although defendant’s claim of denial of his constitutional right to a speedy trial survives his guilty plea, considering the factors set forth in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]), defendant has not demonstrated that this right was violated (see People v Cintron, supra at 828). Even accepting defendant’s timeline, he committed a serious crime of selling almost an ounce of cocaine, the delay was not extensive, he was released on bail two days after his arrest and no prejudice has been demonstrated.

[969]*969Carpinello, J.P., Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 968, 825 N.Y.S.2d 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woodhouse-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack