Opinion
2015-07641 Ind. No. 1604/15
12-22-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jason POWELL, appellant.
Joseph Z. Amsel, New York, NY, for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Ann Bordley, and Coby Ballard of counsel), for respondent.
Joseph Z. Amsel, New York, NY, for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Ann Bordley, and Coby Ballard of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., BETSY BARROS, PAUL WOOTEN, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Evelyn Laporte, J.), rendered July 7, 2015, as amended July 14, 2025, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The defendant's failure to base his speedy trial motions on the specific contentions that he now raises on appeal renders those contentions unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Rosa, 171 A.D.3d 1099, 1100, 96 N.Y.S.3d 547 ; People v. Owens, 138 A.D.3d 1035, 28 N.Y.S.3d 630 ). In any event, the defendant's contention that the total time chargeable to the People was more than six months because the original indictment was jurisdictionally defective is without merit. The error contained in the special informations supporting the original indictment—naming someone other than the defendant in one section—did not render the original indictment jurisdictionally defective (see People v. Gibson, 21 A.D.3d 577, 578, 799 N.Y.S.2d 340 ; People v. Williamson, 301 A.D.2d 860, 862, 755 N.Y.S.2d 443 ; People v. DiCarluccio, 168 A.D.2d 509, 510, 562 N.Y.S.2d 750 ).
The Supreme Court did not rule on the defendant's application for a Dunaway hearing ( Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 ). By acquiescing in the lack of a ruling, the defendant abandoned that application, thereby rendering his present Dunaway claim unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Collier, 146 A.D.3d 1146, 1147, 46 N.Y.S.3d 276 ; People v. Bigelow, 68 A.D.3d 1127, 1128, 892 N.Y.S.2d 449 ). In any event, the defendant's contention that he was entitled to a Dunaway hearing is without merit. The defendant failed to set forth factual allegations that supported his claim that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him (see People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 432, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017 ; People v. Cameron, 74 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 905 N.Y.S.2d 619 ; People v. Wright, 54 A.D.3d 695, 696, 863 N.Y.S.2d 253 ).
DILLON, J.P., BARROS, WOOTEN and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.