Opinion
2014-09-26
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William RIVERA, Defendant–Appellant.
J. Scott Porter, Seneca Falls, for Defendant–Appellant. Barry Porsch, District Attorney, Waterloo, for Respondent.
J. Scott Porter, Seneca Falls, for Defendant–Appellant. Barry Porsch, District Attorney, Waterloo, for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI AND VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly refused to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that his constitutional rights to a speedy trial and to due process were violated ( see generally People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303). The court properly determined, following a hearing, that the People established good cause for the 13–month preindictment delay ( see generally People v. Singer, 44 N.Y.2d 241, 254, 405 N.Y.S.2d 17, 376 N.E.2d 179; People v. Perez, 85 A.D.3d 1538, 1538–1539, 924 N.Y.S.2d 704; People v. Cody, 30 A.D.3d 1068, 1068–1069, 816 N.Y.S.2d 662), and that there was no “indication that the defense [was] impaired by reason of the delay” (People v. Vernace, 96 N.Y.2d 886, 887, 730 N.Y.S.2d 778, 756 N.E.2d 66; cf. People v. Romeo, 12 N.Y.3d 51, 58, 876 N.Y.S.2d 666, 904 N.E.2d 802, cert. denied558 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 63, 175 L.Ed.2d 24). We perceive no basis to disturb the court's determination that there was good cause for the delay in the grand jury presentation, i.e., the undercover officer involved in investigating defendant also was involved in another, unrelated investigation in the rural area in which defendant resided ( see People v. Lesiuk, 81 N.Y.2d 485, 490–491, 600 N.Y.S.2d 931, 617 N.E.2d 1047), and, if the undercover officer's identity was revealed, both the safety of the undercover officer and the success of the unrelated investigation could be jeopardized.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.