Opinion
March 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Franklin County (Plumadore, J.).
The record supports Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition. Petitioner's contention that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial could have been raised on direct appeal or in a motion pursuant to CPL article 440. In fact, the issue was the subject of at least one such motion, which was denied. In addition, as Supreme Court noted, this is not a case involving the deprivation of a substantial constitutional right on the face of the record so as to warrant a departure from traditional orderly procedure. In light of this result, it is not necessary to address respondent's procedural objections. Petitioner's remaining arguments have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.
Cardona, P.J., Crew III, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.