Opinion
October 7, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.).
Upon weighing the extent of the delay, the reason for the delay, the nature of the charge, the period of pretrial incarceration, and whether there is any indication that the defendant's chances for acquittal were impaired (see, People v Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445), we find that defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated. The period of delay was extensive, but no significant portion of the delay, the vast majority of which was attributable to the absence of the prosecutor's witness, was unjustified. In this regard, insofar as delay caused by the missing witness implicates the diligence of the prosecutor, the issue has not been preserved (People v Rodriguez, 50 N.Y.2d 553, 557). Further, the charges against defendant were most serious (People v. Johnson, 38 N.Y.2d 271, 277), and defendant would have been incarcerated for a large portion of the period of the delay as the result of his conviction on other charges (People v. Jackson, 178 A.D.2d 305, 306, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 948).
Defendant's contention that his sentence was excessive is without merit. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms" (People v. Felman, 141 A.D.2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 918).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.