Opinion
17573 Ind. No. 4895/17 Case No. 2019-03922
03-23-2023
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sharon LASHLEY, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Molly Morgan of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Molly Morgan of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, A.P.J., Friedman, Scarpulla, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered June 6, 2019, as amended December 13, 2019, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty plea, of identity theft in the first degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's claim that her counsel rendered ineffective assistance by submitting a defective speedy trial motion is unreviewable on direct appeal because it generally involves matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698 [1988] ). These include counsel's reasons for not challenging two periods of delay, and facts bearing on the excludability of one of these periods. Therefore, because defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of her claim may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative we find, to the extent the existing record permits review, that defendant received effective assistance (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713–714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998] ; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ). On the present record, defendant has not established that either of the periods at issue should have been charged to the People.