You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DEFENSE...
,

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DEFENSE COUNSEL RELIED ON A CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENT WHEN DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defense counsel was ineffective because defendant was entitled to dismissal of the indictment pursuant to the speedy trial statute. Defense counsel was aware of the correct dates, but only argued defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial and did not correct County Court’s erroneous time calculation:

Although defense counsel set forth the pertinent dates of the commencement of the action and defendant’s arraignment, at which time the People announced their readiness for trial (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]), he failed to argue that the relevant period exceeded six months and was a clear violation of defendant’s statutory speedy trial rights. Instead, defense counsel focused on the constitutional speedy trial claim. At oral argument of the motion, the court addressed the statutory speedy trial claim, set forth the pertinent dates, and then stated that, according to its calculation, “without specifically crunching the numbers, but by estimates, that is a period of five months and seven days.” After addressing the circumstances of the superceding indictment and the constitutional speedy trial claim, the court asked defense counsel if there were “any fact[s] that would be pertinent that [it] did not recite in discussing the matter.” Instead of pointing out the court’s erroneous calculation of the statutory speedy trial period, defense counsel stated, “I think my motion was essentially based on the 30.20 Constitutional speedy trial . . .” … . …

Here, although, as noted, defense counsel made a speedy trial claim, we conclude that there was no strategic or legitimate explanation for defense counsel’s failure to alert the court that it had inaccurately calculated that only five months and seven days had passed between the commencement of the action and the People’s statement of readiness and that, instead, more than six months had elapsed … . People v Bloodworth, 2019 NY Slip Op 05284, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

You might also like
Defendant Could Not Deny Ownership Of Vehicle (Which Was Allegedly Transferred to Another Prior to the Accident) Because License Plates Had Not Been Removed
Contract Between Town and Employer of Injured Employee Did Not Allow Indemnification of Town by Employer
DEFENDANT DRIVER STRUCK A DISABLED CAR WHICH WAS SIDEWAYS IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY; THE CAR WAS BLACK AND THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED AT NIGHT IN A STEADY RAIN; DEFENDANT DRIVER CLAIMED TO BE GOING THE SPEED LIMIT, 65 MPH; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE ARM-WRESTLED WITH PLAINTIFF; THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED INJURY TO PLAINTIFF UNDER A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT WAS PARKED IN A HIGH CRIME AREA NEAR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THE FILED “TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT” BY AN APARTMENT PROPERTY MANAGER, REQUESTING THAT ANYONE ON THE PROPERTY WHO WAS NOT A TENANT BE ARRESTED FOR TRESPASS, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH A “PARTICULARIZED” REASON FOR APPROACHING THE DEFENDANT TO REQUEST INFORMATION; THE COCAINE AND HANDGUN SEIZED UPON THE DEFENDANT’S ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
FRAUD WARRANTED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Cleaning Clogged Drain Was Routine Maintenance, Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1)
THE TEXTS AND EMAILS WERE NOT SUBSCRIBED; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BASED UPON THE EMAILS AND TEXTS WAS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN EASEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE... DENIAL OF MOTHER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION...