From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cintron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 6, 2004
7 A.D.3d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

14202.

Decided and Entered: May 6, 2004.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.), rendered June 19, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

F. Stanton Ackerman, Albany (Theresa M. Suozzi, Saratoga Springs, of counsel), for appellant.

Beth G. Cozzolino, District Attorney, Hudson (H. Neal Conolly of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


In March 2001, defendant was arrested after he dropped a loaded handgun while fleeing the scene of a traffic stop. Approximately one year later, he was charged in an indictment with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. After County Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he had been denied his right to a speedy trial, defendant pleaded guilty to both counts of the indictment, preserving his right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 4½ years and 2 to 4 years. Defendant appeals, asserting that he was denied his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial.

We affirm. Initially, we note that "[b]y pleading guilty, defendant waived appellate review of his statutory right to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30" (People v. Smith, 272 A.D.2d 679, 681, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 938; see People v. Benjamin, 296 A.D.2d 666, 667). In contrast, defendant's claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial survived his guilty plea (see People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 599, 602). Nevertheless, applying the factors set forth inPeople v. Taranovich ( 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445), we conclude that defendant's claim is unavailing. We note that the time period between defendant's arrest and his indictment was one year and five days, well within the statute of limitations (see CPL 30.10 [b]; People v. Coggins, 308 A.D.2d 635, 635-636), his freedom was not impaired by the delay inasmuch as he was incarcerated for a parole violation in June 2001 (see People v. Hernandez, 306 A.D.2d 751, 752), and there is no evidence that his defense was impaired in any way as a result of the delay (see People v. Benjamin, supra at 667). Finally, we reject as meritless defendant's argument that the sentence imposed by County Court was harsh and excessive.

Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Cintron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 6, 2004
7 A.D.3d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Cintron

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE R. CINTRON…

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

Date published: May 6, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
776 N.Y.S.2d 919

Citing Cases

People v. Woodhouse

We affirm. Defendant, by pleading guilty, waived his right to appellate review of his argument regarding his…

People v. Wallender

Upon our review of the record, we find that defendant has failed to establish either that the People's…