People
v.
Grafton

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.Aug 30, 2017
60 N.Y.S.3d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
60 N.Y.S.3d 436153 A.D.3d 933

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • People v. Brooks

    …The defendant appeals from the judgment rendered February 25, 2014, and the resentence imposed April 1, 2015.…

  • People v. Lott

    …ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed. The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review…

lock 6 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

2016-06086. Ind. No. 1332/14.

08-30-2017

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kenneth GRAFTON, appellant.

Bruce R. Bekritsky, Mineola, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Cristin N. Connell and W. Thomas Hughes of counsel), for respondent.


Bruce R. Bekritsky, Mineola, NY, for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Cristin N. Connell and W. Thomas Hughes of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, and ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered May 9, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

"A criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed both by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ( U.S. Const. 6th, 14th Amends.) and by statute ( CPL 30.20 ; Civil Rights Law § 12 )" ( People v. Romeo, 12 N.Y.3d 51, 55, 876 N.Y.S.2d 666, 904 N.E.2d 802 ). "Violation of this right results in dismissal of an indictment" ( id. at 55, 876 N.Y.S.2d 666, 904 N.E.2d 802 ; see Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439–440, 93 S.Ct. 2260, 37 L.Ed.2d 56 ; People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 444, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303 ). Here, by pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of his claims that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 (see People v. Zeigler, 128 A.D.3d 737, 738, 7 N.Y.S.3d 600 ; People v. Franco, 104 A.D.3d 790, 790, 960 N.Y.S.2d 507 ; People v. Kidd, 100 A.D.3d 779, 779, 953 N.Y.S.2d 863 ) and pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ( CPL 580.20, art III[a]; see People v. Gooden, 151 A.D.2d 773, 774, 542 N.Y.S.2d 757 ; People v. Cusick, 111 A.D.2d 251, 251, 489 N.Y.S.2d 96 ). Moreover, to the extent the defendant claims that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated, the contention is without merit (see People v. Franco, 104 A.D.3d at 791, 960 N.Y.S.2d 507 ).

The defendant's contention that his application for a writ of habeas corpus was improperly denied is not properly before us on this appeal (see People v. Lynch, 121 A.D.3d 717, 719, 993 N.Y.S.2d 163 ).

The defendant's remaining contention was forfeited by the entry of his plea.