PEOPLE v. GRANT (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Tara A. Collins J., at speedy trial motions;  Naita A. Semaj, J., at plea;  and Jeffrey Rosenblueth, J., at sentencing), rendered April 18, 2023, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a weapon on the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant validly waived his right to appeal, which forecloses review of his statutory speedy trial claim (see People v. Ekukpe, 236 A.D.3d 528, 528, 228 N.Y.S.3d 550 [1st Dept. 2025], lv granted 44 N.Y.3d 993, 242 N.Y.S.3d 210, 269 N.E.3d 196 [2025];  People v. Hall, 210 A.D.3d 482, 482, 176 N.Y.S.3d 480 [1st Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1078, 184 N.Y.S.3d 275, 204 N.E.3d 1057 [2023]).  “The combination of the court's colloquy and the detailed written waiver that defendant signed after consultation with counsel satisfied the requirements of a valid waiver” (People v. Commisso, 224 A.D.3d 463, 464, 203 N.Y.S.3d 92 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 1001, 213 N.Y.S.3d 249, 236 N.E.3d 1267 [2024];  see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 560, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied 589 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]).  While the court did not explicitly enumerate the rights that defendant was waiving, it noted the rights he was retaining and that the appellate rights were separate and apart from the other rights defendant waived by virtue of his guilty plea.  Defendant executed two written waivers of appeal, the first after consultation with counsel and the second in open court, and the court twice – at plea and just prior to sentencing – explained the waiver to defendant and elicited from defendant that he understood the rights he was both retaining and waiving.  Accordingly, the totality of the circumstances indicates that defendant “had a full appreciation of the consequences of the waiver” (People v. Castillo, 226 A.D.3d 573, 574, 207 N.Y.S.3d 525 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 1017, 214 N.Y.S.3d 306, 237 N.E.3d 1246 [2024]).  The record does not support defendant's contention that the court misled him as to his right to appellate counsel on the limited appeals to which he was still entitled despite the waiver (cf.  People v. Kyra J., 180 A.D.3d 929, 929–930, 115 N.Y.S.3d 905 [2d Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 971, 125 N.Y.S.3d 28, 148 N.E.3d 492 [2020]).

As an alternative holding, we reject defendant's statutory speedy trial claim on the merits, as our independent review of the record supports Supreme Court's finding that the People exercised due diligence in providing mandatory discovery to defendant (see generally People v. Bay, 41 N.Y.3d 200, 210, 212, 208 N.Y.S.3d 490, 232 N.E.3d 168 [2023], and that the May 12 and July 15, 2022 certificates of compliance were valid.  With 85 days of speedy trial time chargeable to the People, they were ready for trial within the statutorily permissible six months (see CPL 30.30[1][a]).