People v. Walter

• Decision Date: 29 April 2016
• Docket Number: 357 KA 15-00649.
• Citation: 30 N.Y.S.3d 459,138 A.D.3d 1479,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03350
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William I. WALTER, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

138 A.D.3d 1479
30 N.Y.S.3d 459
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03350

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
William I. WALTER, Defendant–Appellant.

357 KA 15-00649.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

April 29, 2016.

30 N.Y.S.3d 460

Karpinski, Stapleton & Tehan, P.C., Auburn (Adam H. Vanbuskirk of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Brian T. Leeds of Counsel), For Respondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, DeJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

138 A.D.3d 1479

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.20 ). Insofar as defendant contends that he was denied his right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30, we note that, “ ‘[w]hen defendant entered a plea of guilty[,] he forfeited his right to claim that he was deprived of a speedy trial under’ ” that statute (People v. Schillawski, 124 A.D.3d 1372, 1372–1373, 999 N.Y.S.2d 657, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1207, 16 N.Y.S.3d 529, 37 N.E.3d 1172, quoting People v. O'Brien, 56 N.Y.2d 1009, 1010, 453 N.Y.S.2d 638, 439 N.E.2d 354 ; see People v. Paduano, 84 A.D.3d 1730, 1730, 922 N.Y.S.2d 726 ).

Furthermore, “[a]lthough defendant's contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial survives his plea of guilty” (Schillawski, 124 A.D.3d at 1373, 997 N.Y.S.2d 658 ), we also note that, in his pro se motion, “ ‘defendant moved to dismiss

138 A.D.3d 1480

the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds only and thus failed to preserve for our review his present contention that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial’ ” (id. ; see People v. Weeks, 272 A.D.2d 983, 983, 708 N.Y.S.2d 687, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 872, 715 N.Y.S.2d 227, 738 N.E.2d 375 ). In any event, defendant's contention is without merit. Upon our review of the record in light of the relevant factors (see People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303 ), we conclude that those factors would have compelled denial of a motion based on defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial, and we note in particular that “ ‘there [was] a complete lack of any evidence that the defense was impaired by reason of the delay’ ” (Schillawski, 124 A.D.3d at 1373, 997 N.Y.S.2d 658 ; see People v. Benjamin, 296 A.D.2d 666, 667, 745...