From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Haas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 18, 1996
229 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

July 18, 1996

Appeal from the County Court of Rensselaer County (McGrath, J.).


Defendant was arrested September 29, 1993 and indicted March 11, 1994 on charges of driving while intoxicated as a felony and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. Defendant ultimately entered into a plea bargain whereby he pleaded guilty to the crime of driving while intoxicated as a felony and waived the right to appeal. Defendant was then sentenced to 90 days' incarceration and five years' probation. In addition, County Court imposed the penalties of a one-year revocation of defendant's driver's license, a fine of $1,000 and a $155 surcharge. Defendant appeals, contending, inter alia, that the 5 1/2-month delay between his arrest and his arraignment violated his due process right to a speedy trial.

It is uncontested that the waiver of an individual's right to appeal does not preclude appellate review of the contention that he was denied the constitutional right to a speedy trial ( see, People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 9; People v. Fuller, 57 N.Y.2d 152, 159, n 7). The issue must, however, have been previously raised by an appropriate challenge before County Court in order to preserve it for appellate review ( see, People v. Smith, 210 A.D.2d 533, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1039). Defendant failed to raise this issue before County Court with the result that it may not be reviewed in the context of this appeal.

Defendant's contention that his sentence was illegal because it did not comport with the alleged terms of the plea bargain agreement is an issue which defendant has similarly failed to preserve for this Court's review because he did not move to vacate his plea nor did he object at the sentencing hearing ( see, People v. Thompson, 193 A.D.2d 841, 842; People v. Ellis, 162 A.D.2d 701, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 892).

We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J.P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Haas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 18, 1996
229 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Haas

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN HAAS, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 18, 1996

Citations

229 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
645 N.Y.S.2d 617

Citing Cases

People v. Smith

We reject that contention. The record establishes that defendant agreed to the accuracy of the facts set…

People v. Pena

Although defendant indicated that he understood the English language, he often communicated through an…