From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Newland

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 26, 2016
138 A.D.3d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

04-26-2016

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wayne NEWLAND, Defendant–Appellant.

Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Eunice Lee of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alice Wiseman of counsel), for respondent.


Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Eunice Lee of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alice Wiseman of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J. at speedy trial motion; Renee A. White, J. at hearing on admissibility of video; Jill Konviser, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered April 23, 2013, convicting defendant of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's speedy trial arguments are unpreserved (see People v. Beasley, 16 N.Y.3d 289, 292–293, 921 N.Y.S.2d 178, 946 N.E.2d 166 [2011] ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Although each of the three periods at issue on appeal was litigated on the speedy trial motion, defendant did not articulate the specific arguments he now makes, and the court “did not expressly decide, in response to protest, the issues now raised on appeal” (People v. Miranda, 27 N.Y.3d 931, ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 02120, *2 [2016] ). As an alternative holding, we find no violation of defendant's right to a speedy trial. The April 10 adjournment was excludable as it resulted from a continuance granted at the request or with the consent of defendant (CPL 30.30[4][b] ), defendant failed to overcome the presumption that the People's July 6 certificate of readiness was a truthful statement of present readiness (see People v. Sibblies, 22 N.Y.3d 1174, 1181, 985 N.Y.S.2d 474, 8 N.E.3d 852 [2014] [Graffeo, J. concurring]; People v. Brown, 126 A.D.3d 516, 517–518, 7 N.Y.S.3d 19 [1st Dept.2015], lv. granted 25 N.Y.3d 1160, 15 N.Y.S.3d 292, 36 N.E.3d 95 [2015] ), and the November 15 adjournment was not a delay directly implicating the People's ability to proceed with trial (see People v. Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529, 535, 498 N.Y.S.2d 119, 488 N.E.2d 1231 [1985] ).

We have considered and rejected defendant's arguments relating to a video recording that was admitted at trial.

SWEENY, J.P., SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, WEBBER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Newland

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 26, 2016
138 A.D.3d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Newland

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wayne NEWLAND…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 26, 2016

Citations

138 A.D.3d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
138 A.D.3d 611
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 3116

Citing Cases

People v. Torres

Thus, defendant argues, the court should have included the full 36–day period from June 18 to July 24, rather…

People v. Torres

Thus, defendant argues, the court should have included the full 36-day period from June 18 to July 24, rather…