Opinion
No. 2406 Ind. No. 493/17 Case No. 2024-00380
05-30-2024
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Park, Defendant-Appellant.
Law Office of Ronald L. Kuby, New York (Ronald L. Kuby of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Amanda Katherine Regan of counsel), for respondent.
Law Office of Ronald L. Kuby, New York (Ronald L. Kuby of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Amanda Katherine Regan of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Moulton, J.P., Scarpulla, Shulman, Higgitt, O'Neill Levy, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), rendered June 3, 2022, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 20 years, unanimously affirmed.
On a prior appeal, we upheld defendant's conviction (People v Park, 209 A.D.3d 568 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 987 [2022]). Thereafter, defendant filed a petition seeking a writ of error coram nobis, contending, among other things, that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a constitutional speedy trial claim. We granted defendant's application "to the extent of directing a de novo appeal on the constitutional speedy trial issue" (People v Park, 2023 NY Slip Op 78794[U] [1st Dept 2023]).
While defendant was incarcerated for just over five years between the day of his arrest and the commencement of his second trial, our review of the record indicates that approximately 20 months of that time may be properly attributed to the People. Unfortunately, defendant's pretrial incarceration was significantly lengthened by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the judicial system. However, in light of all of the circumstances, we find that defendant's state and federal constitutional rights to a speedy trial were not violated (see People v Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442 [1975]; Barker v Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 [1972]). The seriousness of the charge and the particular facts of the case necessitated the presentation of an extensive breadth of evidence and the testimony of numerous witnesses, requiring the prosecutor to "proceed with far more caution and deliberation than he would expend on a relatively minor offense" (Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d at 446). Further, while we acknowledge that defendant's lengthy period of incarceration may have "impact[ed] [him] in ways that go beyond specific impairment of the defense" (People v Wiggins, 31 N.Y.3d 1, 18 [2018]), we also find nothing in the record to suggest that the lengthy delay had any deleterious effect on the defense.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.