| People v Perna (Todd) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 50134(U) [26 Misc 3d 134(A)] |
| Decided on January 27, 2010 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County (Ray
Shoemaker, J.), rendered October 2, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of
guilty, of driving while intoxicated.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
On June 22, 2005, the People filed three simplified traffic informations charging defendant with driving while intoxicated per se (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]), driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]), and failure to have two lighted rear lamps (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [2] [a] [3]), respectively. Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the three accusatory instruments on the ground that he was denied his statutory (CPL 30.30) and constitutional (CPL 30.20) rights to a speedy trial. The Justice Court denied the branch of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the accusatory instruments pursuant to CPL 30.30, but did not decide the branch of the motion which sought to dismiss the accusatory instruments pursuant to CPL 30.20. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]) in satisfaction of the three simplified traffic informations. In doing so, defendant forfeited his right to claim that he was deprived of a speedy trial under CPL 30.30 (see People v O'Brien, 56 NY2d 1009 [1982]; People v Douglas, 46 AD3d 698 [2007]).
A defendant's constitutional speedy trial claim (CPL 30.20) survives a guilty plea (see
People v Friscia, 51 NY2d 845 [1980]; People v Rozell, 162 AD2d 732 [1990]).
However, as the Justice Court failed to decide the branch of defendant's motion which sought to
dismiss the accusatory instruments on said ground, upon entering his guilty plea, defendant
abandoned his claim that he was denied such constitutional right (see People v Sutton,
80 NY2d 273 [1992]; People v Love, 236 AD2d 488 [1997]).
[*2]
Defendant's remaining contention, that there was no
probable cause for his stop and arrest, is both unpreserved (see People v Colon, 229
AD2d 301 [1996]) and waived by virtue of his guilty plea (see People v Rojas, 169
AD2d 464 [1991]).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 27, 2010