Summary
finding defendant's speedy trial claim to be unreviewable due, in part, to defendant's failure to provide the court with the relevant minutes
Summary of this case from Castillo v. HodgesOpinion
November 5, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.).
Defendant's claim that the court erred in failing to hold a hearing on the constitutional branch of his speedy trial motion is unreviewable since defendant failed to provide this Court with the court file that the trial court considered in making its determination, particularly with respect to the issue of reasons for delay, or any minutes relevant to that issue ( People v. Kinchen, 60 N.Y.2d 772, 773-774; People v. Brisko, 219 A.D.2d 493, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 844). In any event, the motion papers before the court failed to set forth a sufficient constitutional speedy trial claim ( see, People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442) and did not raise an issue of fact on a material point requiring such a hearing ( People v. Rodriguez, 210 A.D.2d 104, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1037; People v. Gonzalez, 177 A.D.2d 418, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 920).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.