People v. Penna
| Decision Date | 11 April 1994 |
| Citation | 612 N.Y.S.2d 905,203 A.D.2d 392 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Phillip PENNA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Harold I. Guberman, Roslyn Heights, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
James M. Catterson, Jr., Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Glenn Green, of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), rendered August 8, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
It is well-settled that a plea of guilty forfeits the right to appellate review of the denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of the statutory right to a speedy trial (People v. O'Brien, 56 N.Y.2d 1009, 453 N.Y.S.2d 638, 439 N.E.2d 354; People v. Friscia, 51 N.Y.2d 845, 433 N.Y.S.2d 754, 413 N.E.2d 1168; People v. Velez, 179 A.D.2d 834, 580 N.Y.S.2d 865; People v. Wade, 139 A.D.2d 610, 526 N.Y.S.2d 1012; People v. Jackson, 178 A.D.2d 305, 577 N.Y.S.2d 609). Therefore, regardless of whether the defendant consented to his attorney's waiver of the statutory time period, his subsequent plea of guilty operated to waive any claim he may have had to seek dismissal of the action based upon the People's alleged violation of CPL 30.30.
The defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated since he failed to demonstrate that his defense was in any way impaired by reason of the delay (see, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d 101; People v. Lawrence, 64 N.Y.2d 200, 485 N.Y.S.2d 233, 474 N.E.2d 593; People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303; People v. Calamese, 150 A.D.2d 474, 541 N.Y.S.2d 77).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Philip
...514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d 101; People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303; People v. Penna, 203 A.D.2d 392, 612 N.Y.S.2d 905). The defendant's severance motion was untimely (CPL 255.10[1][g]; 255.20[2], and he did not demonstrate "good cause" for th......
-
People v. Williams
...was impaired by reason of the delay (see, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d 101; People v. Penna, 203 A.D.2d 392, 612 N.Y.S.2d 905). The defendant's assertion that reversal is required pursuant to People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2......
-
People v. Decan
...waived either by his plea of guilty (see, People v. O'Brien, 56 N.Y.2d 1009, 453 N.Y.S.2d 638, 439 N.E.2d 354; People v. Penna, 203 A.D.2d 392, 612 N.Y.S.2d 905; People v. Morales, 199 A.D.2d 284, 605 N.Y.S.2d 944; People v. Baldwin, 162 A.D.2d 603, 559 N.Y.S.2d 170; People v. Gooden, 151 A......
-
People v. Grandberry
...55 N.Y.2d 940, 449 N.Y.S.2d 176, 434 N.E.2d 245; People v. Friscia, 51 N.Y.2d 845, 433 N.Y.S.2d 754, 413 N.E.2d 1168; People v. Penna, 203 A.D.2d 392, 612 N.Y.S.2d 905). Review of this issue is also precluded by the defendant's express waiver of his right to appellate review thereof as part......