Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Darren THOMAS, Defendant–Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Molly Ryan of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Joshua L. Haber of counsel), for respondent.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK, JJ.

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered March 21, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand

larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 1 ½ to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's constitutional speedy trial claim is unreviewable because he has not supplied minutes for the great majority of the adjournments in this case (see People v. Arroyo, 93 A.D.3d 608, 609, 940 N.Y.S.2d 867 [1st Dept.2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 957, 950 N.Y.S.2d 108, 973 N.E.2d 206 [2012] ). Contrary to defendant's argument, these minutes are necessary because of their bearing on the critical issue of the reasons for the delay.

To the extent the present record permits review, we conclude, after considering the factors set forth in

People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303 (1975), that defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. Although the 27–month delay between defendant's arrest and guilty plea was lengthy, almost all of that delay is attributable to defendant's extensive motion practice and adjournment requests, as well as competency proceedings and complications arising from defendant's choice to represent himself (see People v. Parris, 106 A.D.3d 555, 556, 965 N.Y.S.2d 125 [1st Dept 2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1018, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– [2013] ). Furthermore, defendant has not established that he was prejudiced by the delay.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

People v. Thomas
(May 7, 2015)