People v. Briggs

• Decision Date: 24 December 2014
• Docket Number: 2013-02576
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christopher BRIGGS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

123 A.D.3d 1051

999 N.Y.S.2d 480

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 09010

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent

v.Christopher BRIGGS, appellant.

2013-02576

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 24, 2014.

Martin Goldberg, Franklin Square, N.Y., for appellant.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Sarah S. Rabinowitz of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), rendered January 29, 2013, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent that the defendant claims that his statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 was violated, he forfeited appellate review of this claim by pleading guilty (see People v. O'Brien, 56 N.Y.2d 1009, 1010, 453 N.Y.S.2d 638, 439 N.E.2d 354 ; People v. Howe, 56 N.Y.2d 622, 624, 450 N.Y.S.2d 477, 435 N.E.2d 1092 ; People v. Franco, 104 A.D.3d 790, 960 N.Y.S.2d 507 ; People v. Sze, 113 A.D.3d 795, 796, 978 N.Y.S.2d 879 ).

By contrast, an alleged violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial is not forfeited by a plea of guilty (see People v. Blakley, 34 N.Y.2d 311, 314, 357 N.Y.S.2d 459, 313 N.E.2d 763 ; see also People v. Hanley, 20 N.Y.3d 601, 605 n. 2, 964 N.Y.S.2d 491, 987 N.E.2d 268 ). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal does not foreclose appellate review of his constitutional speedy trial claim (see People v. Romeo, 47 A.D.3d 954, 957, 849 N.Y.S.2d 666, affd. 12 N.Y.3d 51, 876 N.Y.S.2d 666, 904 N.E.2d 802 ). “[A] bargained-for waiver of the right to appeal is ineffective to the extent it impairs the defendant's ability to obtain appellate review of a constitutional speedy trial claim” (People v. Alexander, 19 N.Y.3d 203, 218, 947 N.Y.S.2d 386, 970 N.E.2d 409 ; see People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 282, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108 ; People v. Blakley, 34 N.Y.2d at 314, 357 N.Y.S.2d 459, 313 N.E.2d 763 ). Moreover, contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's constitutional speedy trial claim was properly preserved for appellate review (see People v. Watts, 78 A.D.2d 1008, 1009, 433 N.Y.S.2d 669 ; cf. People v. Cedeno, 52 N.Y.2d 847, 848, 437 N.Y.S.2d 72, 418 N.E.2d 665 ; People v. Lieberman, 47 N.Y.2d 931, 932, 419 N.Y.S.2d 946, 393 N.E.2d 1019 ). However, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the indictment on this ground. His constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated by the lapse of approximately 24 months between his arrest and the commencement of trial, despite the fact that he was incarcerated for this entire period, because much of the delay was directly attributable to the defendant, and not the result of dilatory tactics by the People. Moreover, the defendant has not demonstrated that the lapse of time resulted in any prejudice to him (see People v. Woodard, 234 A.D.2d 613, 614, 652 N.Y.S.2d 64 ; People v. Murphy, 212 A.D.2d 811, 623 N.Y.S.2d 278 ; People v. Thorpe, 183 A.D.2d 795, 796, 586 N.Y.S.2d 519 ).

As to the specific allegations of due process violations caused by the practices of the criminal courts in the County of Nassau, which were raised for the first time on...