From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 12, 2003
306 A.D.2d 115 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

denying review of unpreserved speedy trial issue

Summary of this case from Robinson v. Laclair

Opinion

1410

June 12, 2003.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Troy Webber, J.), rendered June 1, 2000, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3½ to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Claris R. Sukkar, for respondent.

Kerry Elgarten, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow, Gonzalez, JJ.


Defendant's claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial is unpreserved (see People v. Jordan, 62 N.Y.2d 825; see also People v. Rowe, 244 A.D.2d 295, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 930), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Furthermore, defendant has not provided the minutes of all the adjournments that are relevant to this claim (see People v. Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309, 320). Were we to review this claim, we would find no constitutional violation (see People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442). Substantial portions of the delay were caused by defendant's extensive motion practice and his failure to appear in court, necessitating the issuance of a bench warrant, and there was no showing of prejudice.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 12, 2003
306 A.D.2d 115 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

denying review of unpreserved speedy trial issue

Summary of this case from Robinson v. Laclair
Case details for

People v. Mack

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. NATHANIEL MACK…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 12, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 115 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 878

Citing Cases

State v. Capellan

In any event, we find defendant's remaining arguments concerning those adjournments, as well as other…

Robinson v. Laclair

nts . . . were vague and duplicitous is not preserved for appellate review . . . as the defendant failed to…