Majority
Even if we assume that defense counsel’s highly ambiguous remarks constituted adoption of defendant’s pro se constitutional speedy trial motion (see People v Rodriguez, 95 NY2d 497 , 501-503 [2000]), appellate review of this issue is foreclosed because defendant pleaded guilty while the motion remained undecided (see e.g. People v Capellan, 142 AD3d 923 [2016] [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1123 [2016]). Defendant’s arguments concerning whether he made a knowing and intentional waiver are misplaced, because he forfeited review “by operation of law as soon as he pleaded guilty” (People v Alexander, 19 NY3d 203 , 219 [2012]).
In any event, defendant’s failure to provide this Court with transcripts of the relevant court appearances renders his constitutional speedy trial claim unreviewable for that reason as well (see e.g. People v Thomas, 128 AD3d 440 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1208 [2015]). In particular, “these minutes are necessary because of their bearing on the critical issue of the reasons for the delay” {id. at 440). To the extent that the present record permits review, defendant has not established a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442 , 445 [1975]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Concur— Richter, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Singh, JJ.
Cases cited
- People v. Rodriguez 95 NY2d 497 at 501-503 p. 429
- People v. Alexander 19 NY3d 203 at 219 p. 429
- People v. Thomas 128 AD3d 440 p. 429
- People v. Taranovich 37 NY2d 442 at 445 p. 429