From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Romero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 20, 1991
173 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

May 20, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant's claim that the court should have dismissed the indictment on the ground that he was denied due process by the delay in commencing the action. Although the 38-month preindictment delay was substantial, and to some extent unnecessary, the severity of the underlying offense and the lack of any prejudice to the defendant indicate that he was not denied due process (see, People v Singer, 44 N.Y.2d 241; People v LaRocca, 172 A.D.2d 628; People v Angrisani, 160 A.D.2d 713; People v Brown, 124 A.D.2d 667).

In addition, we find that the defendant received his agreed upon sentence and therefore cannot now be heard to complain (see, People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Kooper, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Romero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 20, 1991
173 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Romero

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. NELSON ROMERO…

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

Date published: May 20, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
570 N.Y.S.2d 230

Citing Cases

People v. Santos

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the defendant's…

People v. Rhodes

Weighing all of the factors together, the Court does not find that the Defendant was denied due process…