People v. McCorkle
Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 08707,890 N.Y.S.2d 665,67 A.D.3d 1249 |
Decision Date | 25 November 2009 |
Docket Number | 102156. |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DARRELL McCORKLE, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
In September 2005, defendant was arrested and accused of having committed the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He was then charged in an indictment with one count of the same crime in July 2006. Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. Supreme Court sentenced defendant, as agreed, to a prison term of 3½ years, followed by 1½ years of post-release supervision. Defendant now appeals.*
Defendant's sole argument on appeal, that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, survives both his guilty plea and appeal waiver (see People v King, 62 AD3d 1162, 1163 [2009]; People v Simpson, 34 AD3d 934, 935 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 849 [2007]). In reviewing whether that right has been violated, the relevant factors "include the length of delay, reason for the delay, nature of the charges, extent of pretrial incarceration and any impairment to the defense caused by the delay" (People v King, 62 AD3d at 1163; see People v Romeo, 12 NY3d 51, 55 [2009], cert denied 558 US ___, 130 S Ct 63 [2009]). Here, there was a 10-month delay between the initial charge and the indictment and readiness for trial. The available transcripts show that, at a minimum, over four months of that delay resulted from adjournments requested or consented to by defense counsel. To the extent that defendant now suggests that he did not personally consent to these adjournments, his acquiescence may be inferred from his counsel's actions, and "[t]he People are entitled to rely on counsel's apparent authority to act on defendant's behalf" (People v Garcia, 33 AD3d 1050, 1052 [2006], lv denied 9 NY3d 844 [2007]; see People v Crogan, 237 AD2d 745, 745 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 857 [1997]). Moreover, defendant was not jailed from October 2005 to the date of his arraignment so that he could cooperate with law enforcement as part of ongoing plea negotiations. Nor is there any indication that his defense was hampered by the delay. After due consideration of the relevant factors, we cannot say that defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated (see People v Arrington, 31 AD3d 801,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Darby
...Ellis, 182 A.D.3d 791, 792 n. 2, 123 N.Y.S.3d 210 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1026, 126 N.Y.S.3d 34, 149 N.E.3d 872 [2020] ; People v. McCorkle, 67 A.D.3d 1249, 1250 n., 890 N.Y.S.2d 665 [2009] ...
-
Irvis v. Haggat
...v. Lasker, 481 F.2d 229 (2d Cir. 1973) (2 years)). On Petitioner's direct appeal, the Appellate Division, quoting People v. McCorkle, 890 N.Y.S.2d 665 (3d Dep't 2009), identified the factors to be considered in evaluating his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial claim as "length of delay......
-
People v. Darby
... ... --------- ... [1] Because defendant failed to raise any ... contentions in his brief with regard to the denial of his CPL ... 440.10 motion, we deem said appeal abandoned (see People ... v Ellis, 182 A.D.3d 791, 792 n 2 [2020], lv ... denied 35 N.Y.3d 1026 [2020]; People v ... McCorkle ... ...
-
People v. Gardiner, 108482
...N.Y.S.3d 645 1303, 935 N.Y.S.2d 371 [2011], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 962, 950 N.Y.S.2d 114, 973 N.E.2d 212 [2012] ; People v. McCorkle, 67 A.D.3d 1249, 1250, 890 N.Y.S.2d 665 [2009] ), it is equally unpreserved for our review (see People v. Fay, 154 A.D.3d 1178, 1180, 63 N.Y.S.3d 575 [2017], lv ......