People v. Spears
| Decision Date | 03 December 1984 |
| Citation | 106 A.D.2d 417,482 N.Y.S.2d 340 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Alfred SPEARS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Samuel E. Felberbaum, Huntington, for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Anthony J. Girese, Mineola, and Lawrence J. Schwartz, of counsel), for respondent.
Before WEINSTEIN, J.P., and BROWN, RUBIN and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered May 16, 1983, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant's plea of guilty operated as a waiver of his claim that he was entitled to have the indictment dismissed on the ground that the People were not ready for trial within the time prescribed by CPL 30.30 (subd. 1, par. ). Accordingly, we do not consider the merits of defendant's statutory "speedy trial" claim on the instant appeal (People v. Savage, 54 N.Y.2d 697, 698, 442 N.Y.S.2d 974, 426 N.E.2d 468; see, also, People v. O'Brien, 56 N.Y.2d 1009, 453 N.Y.S.2d 638, 439 N.E.2d 354). Moreover, defendant's "speedy trial" motion was untimely, as it was brought after he entered his plea of guilty (see CPL 210.20, subd. 2). Even if defendant's claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial were to be considered as surviving his guilty plea, he has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief in accordance with the factors enumerated in People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303; (see People v. Savage, supra; People v. Lomax, 50 N.Y.2d 351, 358-359, 428 N.Y.S.2d 937, 406 N.E.2d 793).
Defendant asserts that the indictment was defective and should be dismissed for reasons that include the failure to properly establish venue for two of the charged offenses in the prosecuting jurisdiction, the improper joinder of other offenses with the charge of robbery in the first degree (see CPL 200.20, subd. 2) and the insufficiency of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury. The above issues are not properly before this court on the instant appeal as they do not constitute jurisdictional objections related to the right of the People to prosecute defendant and were thus waived by him when he entered his plea of guilty (see People v. Thomas, 74 A.D.2d 317, 319-321, 428 N.Y.S.2d 20, affd. 53 N.Y.2d 338, 441 N.Y.S.2d 650, 424 N.E.2d 537; see, also,People v. Dunbar, 53 N.Y.2d 868, 871, 440 N.Y.S.2d 613, 423 N.E.2d 36; People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 600-601, 412 N.Y.S.2d 110, 384 N.E.2d 656; People v. Case, 42 N.Y.2d 98, 100, 396 N.Y.S.2d 841, 365 N.E.2d 872; People v. Williams, 14 N.Y.2d 568, 248 N.Y.S.2d 659, 198 N.E.2d 45, mot. for rearg. den. 14 N.Y.2d 689). Defendant's contentions that the indictment must be dismissed as it was based upon illegally seized evidence and a mistaken identification, were also waived by his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Freeman
...v. Cohen, 52 N.Y.2d 584, 587, 439 N.Y.S.2d 321, 421 N.E.2d 813), including those raising the issue of identity (see, People v. Spears, 106 A.D.2d 417, 418, 482 N.Y.S.2d 340). Defendant is therefore precluded from raising the issue which he seeks to raise on this appeal, and the judgment mus......
-
People v. Alvarez
...pursuant to CPL 30.30 was made after his guilty plea, and was therefore untimely in any event (see, CPL 210.20[2]; People v. Spears, 106 A.D.2d 417, 482 N.Y.S.2d 340). Furthermore, any attempt by defendant to reserve that claim would have been ineffectual (see, People v. O'Brien, 56 N.Y.2d ......
-
People v. Torres
...755; People v. Hinestrosa, 121 A.D.2d 469, 503 N.Y.S.2d 155; People v. Pirone, 108 A.D.2d 829, 485 N.Y.S.2d 104; People v. Spears, 106 A.D.2d 417, 418, 482 N.Y.S.2d 340). The issues raised in the defendant's posttrial motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 are not properly before this court as he fa......