From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Thomas

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 7, 2015
128 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

15025, 6168/09

05-07-2015

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Darren THOMAS, Defendant–Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Molly Ryan of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Joshua L. Haber of counsel), for respondent.


Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Molly Ryan of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Joshua L. Haber of counsel), for respondent.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK, JJ.

Opinion Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered March 21, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 1 ½ to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's constitutional speedy trial claim is unreviewable because he has not supplied minutes for the great majority of the adjournments in this case (see People v. Arroyo, 93 A.D.3d 608, 609, 940 N.Y.S.2d 867 [1st Dept.2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 957, 950 N.Y.S.2d 108, 973 N.E.2d 206 [2012] ). Contrary to defendant's argument, these minutes are necessary because of their bearing on the critical issue of the reasons for the delay.

To the extent the present record permits review, we conclude, after considering the factors set forth in People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303 (1975), that defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. Although the 27–month delay between defendant's arrest and guilty plea was lengthy, almost all of that delay is attributable to defendant's extensive motion practice and adjournment requests, as well as competency proceedings and complications arising from defendant's choice to represent himself (see People v. Parris, 106 A.D.3d 555, 556, 965 N.Y.S.2d 125 [1st Dept 2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1018, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– [2013] ). Furthermore, defendant has not established that he was prejudiced by the delay.


Summaries of

People v. Thomas

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 7, 2015
128 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Darren Thomas…

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

Date published: May 7, 2015

Citations

128 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
9 N.Y.S.3d 38
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 3924

Citing Cases

People v. Lebron

Even if we assume that defense counsel's highly ambiguous remarks constituted adoption of defendant's pro se…

People v. Thomas

Judge: Decision Reported Below: 1st Dept: 128 AD3d 440 (NY)…