PEOPLE v. ORTIZ (2005)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Eddie ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: March 18, 2005

PRESENT: SCUDDER, J.P., MARTOCHE, PINE, LAWTON, AND HAYES, JJ.

Cynthia B. Brennan, Auburn, for Defendant-Appellant. James B. Vargason, District Attorney, Auburn (Christopher T. Valdina of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent.

On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate (Penal Law former § 240.32), defendant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see CPL 30.20; see generally People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 444-445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303). The preindictment delay of 10 months is not unreasonable, and defendant's conclusory allegations of prejudice are otherwise insufficient to support that contention (see People v. Beyah, 302 A.D.2d 981, 754 N.Y.S.2d 619, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 626, 760 N.Y.S.2d 107, 790 N.E.2d 281). The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network