Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ruben ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, J. at motions; Edwin Torres, J. at suppression hearing; Charles H. Solomon, J. at plea and sentence), rendered June 21, 2005, convicting defendant of attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 12 1/212 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, which originally charged second-degree murder, made on the ground of preindictment delay. Defendant has not established any prejudice from the 11-year delay, which was caused by the fact that the police had no witnesses or suspects, and, despite good faith efforts, did not ascertain the identity of the perpetrator until after the advent of new fingerprint comparison technology (see United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 97 S.Ct. 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 [1977]; People v. Singer, 44 N.Y.2d 241, 252-255, 405 N.Y.S.2d 17, 376 N.E.2d 179 [1978]; People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303 [1975] ). Defendant's arguments to the contrary, including those that improperly cite documents that are not part of the record, are without merit.
Defendant's written and oral waivers, taken together, establish a valid and enforceable waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Ramos, 7 N.Y.3d 737, 819 N.Y.S.2d 853, 853 N.E.2d 222 [2006]; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006] ). The court expressly informed defendant that as a condition of the plea he was agreeing to waive his right to appeal, and the court separated that right from the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea. This waiver forecloses review of defendant's procedural and substantive claims relating to his suppression motion, and his excessive sentence claim. In any event, we find all of these claims without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 04, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)