You are here: / / THE 202O AMENDMENT TO CPL 30.30 WHICH ALLOWS AN APPEAL ALLEGING A VIOLATION...

THE 202O AMENDMENT TO CPL 30.30 WHICH ALLOWS AN APPEAL ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE AFTER A GUILTY PLEA DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, determined the 2020 amendment to Criminal Procedure Law 30.30 which allows an appeal alleging the violation of the speedy trial statute after a guilty plea does not apply retroactively:

At the time of defendant’s plea in November 2017 and his sentencing in April 2018, it was settled law that a guilty plea forfeited a defendant’s right to claim that the trial court erred in denying his or her CPL 30.30 speedy trial motion … . However, CPL 30.30 (6), which was enacted as part of an omnibus budget bill in April 2019 and became effective on January 1, 2020 … , provides that “[a]n order finally denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to [CPL 30.30 (1)] shall be reviewable upon an appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction notwithstanding the fact that such judgment is entered upon a plea of guilty.” * * *

“… [I]t is a bedrock rule of law that, absent an unambiguous statement of legislative intent, statutes that revive time-barred claims if applied retroactively will not be construed to have that effect” … . People v Duggins, 2021 NY Slip Op 00336, Third Dept 1-21-21

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY ENTITLED TO A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD AND A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY CLASSIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).
Multiplicitous Indictment Counts Dismissed/Warrantless Search of Impounded Vehicle Upheld
Defendant Entitled to Jury Instruction on Agency Defense Re: Drug Sale and Possession Charges
Corporate Officer Personally Liable for Outstanding Sales and Use Taxes
Appellant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction—Questions of Fact Whether Witness Testimony Was Induced by Threats and/or Promises Not Disclosed to the Defense at Trial
THIS CASE PRESENTS THE RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, DESPITE THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR MOTION WHICH WAS BASED ON THE SAME GROUND, I.E., DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHEN DEFENDANT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE (THIRD DEPT). ​
Evidence Insufficient to Support Neglect Finding, Criteria Explained/Repetition of Child’s Out-of-Court Statement Does Not Corroborate It
Failure to Strictly Comply with the Service Instructions in the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Which Included Service by E-Mail and Text Message) Required Dismissal of the Petitions

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

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING OF NEGLECT ON MOTHER’S PART (THIRD... THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE...