From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 3, 1992
188 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 3, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Richard C. Failla, J., Robert M. Haft, J.


Defendant's contention on appeal that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial is unpreserved for review as a matter of law, his motion to dismiss the indictment having raised only his statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 (People v Lieberman, 47 N.Y.2d 931, 932), which was waived by his guilty plea (People v Friscia, 51 N.Y.2d 845). In any event, review of the constitutional issue is precluded by the lack of an adequate record which it was defendant's burden to provide (People v Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309, 320).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 3, 1992
188 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. James

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FRANK JAMES, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 3, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
590 N.Y.S.2d 491

Citing Cases

People v. Worthy

However, since the issue is raised for the first time on appeal, the defendant's contention is unpreserved…

People v. Worthy

However, since the issue is raised for the first time on appeal, the defendant's contention is unpreserved…