Court Opinion

ID: 9392343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 17:07:09.179359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:45.442371
License: Public Domain

People v Rodriguez (2023 NY Slip Op 02390)

People v Rodriguez

2023 NY Slip Op 02390

Decided on May 04, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: May 04, 2023

Before: Webber, J.P., Gesmer, González, Scarpulla, Mendez, JJ. 

Ind No. 2912/17 Appeal No. 176 Case No. 2019-806 

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
vAngelo Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.

Mark W. Zeno, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Alma D. Gonzalez of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jennifer Mitchell of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Curtis J. Farber, J. at speedy trial motion; Laura A. Ward, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered January 22, 2019, as amended June 29, 2021, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant forfeited review of his speedy trial claim by pleading guilty (see People v Suarez, 55 NY2d 940 [1982]). "Defendant was convicted before the effective date of the current version of CPL 30.30(6), which prospectively permits defendants who plead guilty to raise statutory speedy trial claims on appeal, but which is not retroactive" (People v Hall, 210 AD3d 482, 483 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1078 [2023]; see People v Lara-Medina, 195 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 993 [2021]). Neither People v Acosta (189 AD3d 508, 508 [2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1094 [2021]) nor People v Person (184 AD3d 447 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1069 [2020]), require a contrary result because those cases only addressed the issue of waivability and not retroactivity. In any event, we find that defendant's speedy trial motion was properly denied.
We perceive no basis for further reducing the resentence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 4, 2023