People v. Gonzalez
| Decision Date | 25 June 2002 |
| Citation | 295 A.D.2d 264,744 N.Y.S.2d 382 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>LUCAS GONZALEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
There was no violation of defendant's right to prompt sentencing (see, People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359, 364-367; Matter of Weinstein v Haft, 60 NY2d 625). Although there was a lengthy delay between trial and sentencing, the record supports the sentencing court's conclusion that the delay had two principal causes: first, defendant's complex posttrial applications, including attacks on his persistent felony offender status that required prolonged efforts to obtain minutes of prior convictions, and second, defense counsel's serious and ultimately fatal illness. We note that at one point in the posttrial proceedings defendant was provided with new counsel because of his attorney's ill health, but defendant insisted that his original attorney continue with the case despite her condition.
The record fails to support defendant's claim that the delay in his sentencing frustrated his ability to effectively appeal from his conviction. The minutes and documents that defendant claims to be lost are not missing at all, or never existed in the first place. Defendant's claim rests largely on unwarranted assumptions and inferences as to minutes or documents that supposedly should have existed.
Since defendant made no speedy trial motion of any kind, his claims that his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were violated are unpreserved (People v Jordan, 62 NY2d 825), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Furthermore, these claims are unreviewable because defendant has not included the minutes of relevant adjournments in the record on appeal (see, People v Olivo, 52 NY2d 309); none of these minutes are among those claimed by defendant to be "lost." In any event, on the record before us, we conclude that the pretrial delay was primarily at defendant's request or with his consent, and was caused by pretrial motions and hearings of extraordinary length. Accordingly, there was no violation of defendant's statutory or constitutional speedy trial rights (see, CPL 30.30 [4] [a], [b]; People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility.
The court properly denied defendant's application for a missing witness charge concerning a detective who had interviewed the victims shortly after the crime. This application was untimely and failed to establish a proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tullock
...(see People v. Hakmoun, 232 A.D.2d 243, 649 N.Y.S.2d 1 ; People v. Brown, 136 A.D.2d 1, 525 N.Y.S.2d 618 ; see also People v. Gonzalez, 295 A.D.2d 264, 744 N.Y.S.2d 382 ; People v. Diaz, 213 A.D.2d 353, 625 N.Y.S.2d 120 ). The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees tha......
-
People v. Proctor
...v. Cruz, 134 A.D.2d 886, 886, 522 N.Y.S.2d 54,lv. denied71 N.Y.2d 894, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 523 N.E.2d 311;see also People v. Gonzalez, 295 A.D.2d 264, 265, 744 N.Y.S.2d 382,lv. denied99 N.Y.2d 535, 752 N.Y.S.2d 596, 782 N.E.2d 574;People v. Rodriguez, 281 A.D.2d 289, 722 N.Y.S.2d 134,lv. den......
-
People v. Michael
...(common law) have not been made a part of the appellate record (see People v. Harden, 6 AD3d 181, 182 [2004] ; People v. Gonzalez, 295 A.D.2d 264, 264 [2002] ). For the same reason, it cannot be determined whether trial counsel's failure to make the motion was "sufficiently egregious and pr......
-
Kue Mee Realty Corp. v. Louie
... ... 863KUE MEE REALTY CORP., Appellant,v.MARILYN LOUIE et al., Respondents.Decided June 25, 2002.Concur Tom, J.P., Buckley, Ellerin, Rubin and Gonzalez, JJ ... Plaintiff's attempt, through its process server, to effectuate service of process on defendants by "nail and mail" service was insufficient ... ...