People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 11 May 2000 |
| Citation | 272 A.D.2d 679,708 N.Y.S.2d 485 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>MELVIN SMITH, Appellant. |
Spain, J. P.
In January 1996 defendant was charged in separate felony complaints with engaging in acts of sexual misconduct with two children in his family in 1993. At his arraignment he was released on his own recognizance and child abuse proceedings were thereafter commenced in Family Court. By letter dated May 24, 1996 defendant's attorney informed the prosecutor that—for the good of the children and with a view toward disposing of the charges through a negotiated plea—defendant would not challenge the relief sought in Family Court and that, There is no evidence in the record that the defense ever sent a notice terminating this waiver.
On December 18, 1996, a Grand Jury returned an indictment charging defendant with sodomy in the first degree, sodomy in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and sexual abuse in the second degree. Defendant was arraigned on the indictment in County Court on January 14, 1997 at which time the People expressed their readiness for trial and defendant's release on his own recognizance was continued. In May 1997, defendant and the prosecutor agreed to a disposition which was rejected by County Court, and the matter was set for a June 25, 1997 trial. When the parties appeared for trial, the prosecutor reported his unwillingness to prosecute because there were problems in the People's case pertaining to proof and that the parties had again agreed to a disposition in which defendant would receive one year in jail. County Court again rejected the dispositional proposal and adjourned the matter for pretrial motions. In October 1997, in the absence of any motions, County Court rescheduled the trial date to January 6, 1998, on which date the prosecutor reiterated his unwillingness to proceed to trial on the indictment and his desire to accept a plea with a one-year sentence.[*] Shortly thereafter, in a separate matter, defendant pleaded guilty in Greenville Town Justice Court to a misdemeanor and began serving a sentence of one year in jail.
On August 17, 1998, with defendant's one-year sentence nearing completion, a bail hearing was held on County Court's own motion and defendant was held in lieu of $25,000 cash bail while awaiting trial on the charges in the indictment. The matter next came before County Court on October 13, 1998 on defendant's motion to, inter alia, dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds. County Court denied the motion but granted the prosecutor's motion to amend the indictment to change the dates of the incidents in each count and to reflect the same victim in each count. A new trial date of October 27, 1998 was scheduled and on that date defendant pleaded guilty to sodomy in the first degree and was thereafter sentenced to 4 to 12 years' imprisonment. The plea was entered with the express understanding that defendant waived his right to appeal and that he withdrew all motions made or which could have been made on his behalf. Defendant now appeals arguing that, inter alia, he has been denied his statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights.
We affirm. By pleading guilty, defendant waived appellate review of his statutory right to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30 (see, People v Du Pont, 268 AD2d 612; People v Jarvis, 245 AD2d 579, lv denied 92 NY2d 899; People v Duff, 216 AD2d 689). However, defendant's right to raise his constitutional right to a speedy trial survives both his guilty plea and the waiver of his right to appeal (see, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 599, 602; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 9). In addressing the constitutional speedy trial challenge we have applied the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Apelles, 110289
...ha[s] been found acceptable to both the prosecution and defense" does not compel its acceptance by the trial court ( People v. Smith, 272 A.D.2d 679, 682, 708 N.Y.S.2d 485 [2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 938, 721 N.Y.S.2d 615, 744 N.E.2d 151 [2000] ). Given the nature of the underlying crime, a......
-
People v. Garrow
...U., 299 A.D.2d 772, 773, 751 N.Y.S.2d 114 [2002], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 501, 760 N.Y.S.2d 764, 790 N.E.2d 1193 [2003] ; People v. Smith, 272 A.D.2d 679, 681–682, 708 N.Y.S.2d 485 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 938, 721 N.Y.S.2d 615, 744 N.E.2d 151 [2000] ). Finally, defendant was not denied m......
-
People v. White
...145, 893 N.E.2d 451 [2008] ). In any event, were we to review the claim, we would find it unavailing ( see generally People v. Smith, 272 A.D.2d 679, 681-682, 708 N.Y.S.2d 485 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 938, 721 N.Y.S.2d 615, 744 N.E.2d 151 [2000] ). Defendant's assertion that County Cour......
-
People v. Daniels
...lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 959 [2021]; People v Garrow, 148 A.D.3d 1459, 1460-1461 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1031 [2017]; People v Smith, 272 A.D.2d 679, 682 [2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 938 [2000]). In light of defendant's demonstrated inability to abide by multiple terms of his probation, we fu......