People ex Rel. Deuel

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third DepartmentDec 10, 1992
591 N.Y.S.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
591 N.Y.S.2d 550188 A.D.2d 754

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • People v. Duff

    …We affirm. By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited her right to seek reversal of her conviction on the ground…

  • People v. Coleman

    …70[1], [3]; People v. Bergman, 56 A.D.3d 1225, 866 N.Y.S.2d 918,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 756, 876 N.Y.S.2d 707,…

lock 3 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

December 10, 1992

Appeal from the County Court of Albany County (Keegan, J.).

Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding seeking the dismissal of the indictment against him on the ground that his speedy trial rights under CPL 30.30 had been violated. Subsequent to County Court's determination that petitioner was not entitled to such relief, petitioner entered a plea of guilty to one count of the indictment in satisfaction of all charges against him. A guilty plea waives all antecedent nonjurisdictional defects (see, People v Taylor, 65 N.Y.2d 1; People v Zangrillo, 105 A.D.2d 822) including a claim premised upon the statutory right to a speedy trial (see, People v Gerber, 182 A.D.2d 252). There being no claim that the plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made, the contentions raised in this proceeding are waived (see, People ex rel. Cherry v Deegan, 32 A.D.2d 792; People ex rel. Newman v McMann, 29 A.D.2d 704, lv denied 21 N.Y.2d 644; see also, People v Zangrillo, supra). We also note that at least two prior habeas corpus proceedings claiming a violation of petitioner's speedy trial rights have been commenced and denied (see, People ex rel. Deuel v Campbell, 174 A.D.2d 942, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 863). In any event, even if it could be said that petitioner set forth new grounds in the current application (cf., CPLR 7003 [b]; People ex rel. Sanchez v Hoke, 132 A.D.2d 861), the record before us reveals that County Court properly determined that petitioner's speedy trial rights had not been violated (see, People v Kendzia, 64 N.Y.2d 331; People v McCann, 149 A.D.2d 814, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 743). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking merit.

Weiss, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.