People v. McKenzie
| Decision Date | 14 February 1995 |
| Citation | 622 N.Y.S.2d 582,212 A.D.2d 641 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Matthew McKENZIE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel A. Zahn, P.C., Holbrook, for appellant.
James M. Catterson, Jr., Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Michael Blakey, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and BALLETTA, COPERTINO and HART, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.), rendered November 12, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We do not agree with the defendant's argument that the People deliberately delayed his trial in order to hamper his defense or to gain a tactical advantage. Much of the approximately 14 1/2 month delay which occurred between the time of the defendant's arraignment on July 30, 1991, and his plea of guilty on October 15, 1992, is attributable to various applications made by the defendant or his codefendant. There is no competent proof that the defense was prejudiced by this delay. Considering the factors outlined in People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303, we conclude that the defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see also, People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E.2d 1188; People v. Suarez, 55 N.Y.2d 940, 449 N.Y.S.2d 176, 434 N.E.2d 245; People v. Rosado, 166 A.D.2d 544, 560 N.Y.S.2d 825; People v. Moore, 159 A.D.2d 521, 552 N.Y.S.2d 389; People v. Geller, 65 A.D.2d 774, 409 N.Y.S.2d 791).
There being no other issue reviewable on this appeal, in light of the defendant's plea of guilty and his waiver of his right to appeal (see, People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108; People v. Sutton, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108), the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Robinson
...not all of it was attributable to the People, and the defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced (see, People v. McKenzie, 212 A.D.2d 641, 622 N.Y.S.2d 582; People v. Rosado, 166 A.D.2d 544, 560 N.Y.S.2d 825). Nor did the trial court improperly deny the defendant's request to char......
-
People v. Woodard
...adjournments, applications to proceed pro se, pro se motions, and trial upon an unrelated indictment (see, e.g., People v. McKenzie, 212 A.D.2d 641, 622 N.Y.S.2d 582; People v. Tinh Phan, 208 A.D.2d 659, 617 N.Y.S.2d 480; People v. Garcia, 208 A.D.2d 425, 617 N.Y.S.2d 307; People v. Cardwel......
- People v. Mack
-
People v. McKenzie
...629 N.Y.S.2d 736 85 N.Y.2d 976, 653 N.E.2d 632 People v. Matthew McKenzie Court of Appeals of New York May 12, 1995 Levine, J. 212 A.D.2d 641, 622 N.Y.S.2d 582 App.Div. 2, Suffolk Denied. ...