From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Christian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1989
155 A.D.2d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 15, 1989

Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant waived his speedy trial objection by failing to move for dismissal of the indictment prior to the commencement of trial (CPL 210.20 [g]; [2]; People v Lawrence, 64 N.Y.2d 200; People v Jordan, 62 N.Y.2d 825). Defense counsel's failure to make that motion did not deprive defendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Torrence, 135 A.D.2d 1075, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 1011). Defendant's attorney affirmatively waived any speedy trial objection, and we are not persuaded that the decision to do so was not based upon a reasonable trial strategy.

The claim that defendant was denied his constitutional right to confrontation because a prosecution witness was terminally ill and unavailable to testify was not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05), and discretionary review in the interest of justice is not warranted. We also find defendant's claim that his sentence is harsh and excessive to be without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Christian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1989
155 A.D.2d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Christian

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KENNETH F. CHRISTIAN…

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
547 N.Y.S.2d 747

Citing Cases

Matter of Anthony

The appellant's claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that the speedy trial provisions of the Family…

In the Matter of Shaheen P.J

A motion to dismiss for violation of the appellant's right to speedy hearings would have had "little or no…