From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1989
151 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

June 26, 1989

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Namm, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial as provided by CPL 580.20, known as the "Interstate Agreement on Detainers". However, this claim is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to move to dismiss the indictment on this ground and did not otherwise properly bring the claim to the attention of the trial court (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Primmer, 46 N.Y.2d 1048; People v. Lambert, 92 A.D.2d 550, affd 61 N.Y.2d 978). In any event, there was no violation of CPL 580.20. When those time periods occasioned by the resolution of the defendant's pretrial motions are excluded from the total period of delay, it is clear that the defendant, who had been incarcerated in a Federal penitentiary in Kansas, was tried within 120 days of his arrival in New York as required by subdivision (c) of article IV of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (see, CPL 580.20 art VI [a]; People v. Torres, 60 N.Y.2d 119; People v. Delaney, 121 A.D.2d 650). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Harden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1989
151 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Harden

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MAJOR HARDEN, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 26, 1989

Citations

151 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
542 N.Y.S.2d 796

Citing Cases

People v. Branker

On appeal, the defendant contends that he was denied the right to a speedy trial under article III of CPL…

People v. Branker

On appeal, the defendant contends that he was denied the right to a speedy trial under article III of CPL…