People v. Hernandez
| Decision Date | 08 February 1993 |
| Citation | 593 N.Y.S.2d 335,190 A.D.2d 752 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Angel HERNANDEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Jeffrey I. Richman, of counsel), for appellant.
Appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Nancy F. Talcott, and Angela Prudenti Miller, of counsel), for respondent.
Before EIBER, J.P., and O'BRIEN, RITTER and COPERTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered June 20, 1990, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see, CPL 30.20) because 22 months elapsed between his arrest and the filing of his motion to dismiss the indictment. However, balancing the factors set forth in People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303, we find no such violation. While the defendant was incarcerated for the entire delay, the incarceration was necessitated, in part, by his having fled the jurisdiction after the crime. Furthermore, much of the delay was attributable to the defendant and the record is devoid of any indication that it impaired his defense. The seriousness of the underlying charge further weighed against dismissal (see, People v. Mullins, 137 A.D.2d 227, 528 N.Y.S.2d 698; People v. Lowry, 107 A.D.2d 716, 484 N.Y.S.2d 71). Therefore, his motion was properly denied.
Nor do we find the court's denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea to be an improvident exercise of discretion since the record demonstrates that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170; People v. Frederick, 45 N.Y.2d 520, 410 N.Y.S.2d 555, 382 N.E.2d 1332). That the defendant may have misapprehended the nature of the evidence against him does not entitle him to withdraw his plea (see, Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747; People v. Jones, 44 N.Y.2d 76, 404 N.Y.S.2d 85, 375 N.E.2d 41, cert. denied 439 U.S. 846, 99 S.Ct. 145, 58 L.Ed.2d 148; People v. Grady, 110 A.D.2d 780, 488 N.Y.S.2d 58).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...41,cert. denied439 U.S. 846, 99 S.Ct. 145, 58 L.Ed.2d 148;People v. Greene, 208 A.D.2d 950, 951, 618 N.Y.S.2d 412;People v. Hernandez, 190 A.D.2d 752, 593 N.Y.S.2d 335;People v. Wright, 182 A.D.2d 849, 582 N.Y.S.2d 802). In any event, a second analysis performed at a crime laboratory in Pen......
-
People v. Greene
... ... United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747; People v. Jones, 44 N.Y.2d 76, 404 N.Y.S.2d 85, 375 N.E.2d 41, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 846, 99 S.Ct. 145, 58 L.Ed.2d 148; People v. Hernandez, 190 A.D.2d 752, 593 N.Y.S.2d 335; People v. Wright, 182 A.D.2d 849, 582 N.Y.S.2d 802) ... Since the defendant withdrew his suppression motion prior to pleading guilty, appellate review of the merits of that motion is precluded (see, People v. Fernandez, 67 N.Y.2d 686, 499 ... ...
-
People v. Heller
... ... Rodriguez, 188 A.D.2d 444, 591 N.Y.S.2d 416; People v. Spears, 64 N.Y.2d 698, 699, 485 N.Y.S.2d 521, 474 N.E.2d 1189). Defense counsel was unable to identify the potential witness and failed to exercise due diligence in his attempts to procure such witness (People v. Hernandez, 146 A.D.2d 646, 536 N.Y.S.2d 546). In any event, the record indicates that despite the trial court's denial of this motion, defense counsel succeeded in procuring an expert arson witness merely two days after such denial, thus alleviating any possible prejudice ... The ... ...
-
People v. Cardwell
... ... Although the defendant was incarcerated during this entire period, the incarceration was attributable to the murder prosecution and to his conviction and sentencing on the prior indictment, which occurred before the disposition of the indictment at bar ( see, e.g., People v. Hernandez, 190 A.D.2d 752, 593 N.Y.S.2d 335 [2d Dept., 1993]; People v. Thorpe, 183 A.D.2d 795, 586 N.Y.S.2d 519; People v. Rosado, 166 A.D.2d 544, 560 N.Y.S.2d 825). Finally, there is no indication in the record that the defense was impaired by reason of the delay ... ...