From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Chambers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 18, 2001
279 A.D.2d 353 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

January 18, 2001.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered November 24, 1997, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of bail jumping in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

David J. Mudd for respondent.

Susan J. Abraham for defendant-appellant.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Rubin, Saxe, Friedman, JJ.


Upon our review of the factors set forth in People v. Taranovich ( 37 N.Y.2d 442), we find that defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Specifically, we note that the People established a reasonable explanation for the delay and that defendant did not establish any prejudice.

The court's denial of defendant`s request for new counsel, made at the start of trial, was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v. Sides, 75 N.Y.2d 822). Defendant, who received a sufficient opportunity to voice his complaints about his attorney, did not establish good cause for substitution.

Defendant's sufficiency claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of bail jumping in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Chambers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 18, 2001
279 A.D.2d 353 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Chambers

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. NOVIS CHAMBERS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 18, 2001

Citations

279 A.D.2d 353 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
718 N.Y.S.2d 849

Citing Cases

People v. Robinson

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly…