PEOPLE v. WOODRUFF (2004)

 On appeal from a judgment convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[7] ), 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, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303).   Although that contention survives the waiver of the right to appeal and the plea of guilty (see People v. Egan, 6 A.D.3d 1206, 775 N.Y.S.2d 714;  People v. Dewitt, 295 A.D.2d 937, 938, 743 N.Y.S.2d 344, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 709, 749 N.Y.S.2d 6, 778 N.E.2d 557, 98 N.Y.2d 767, 752 N.Y.S.2d 7, 781 N.E.2d 919), “defendant raises that contention for the first time on appeal and therefore failed to preserve it for our review” (People v. Robinson, 1 A.D.3d 1019, 1020, 767 N.Y.S.2d 363, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 745, 778 N.Y.S.2d 471, 810 N.E.2d 924;  see People v. Johnson, 305 A.D.2d 1097, 759 N.Y.S.2d 719).   In any event, the delay of five months between the date of the crime and defendant's plea was not unreasonable and defendant's conclusory allegations of prejudice are insufficient to support that contention (see People v. Martinez [Appeal No. 1], 187 A.D.2d 992, 590 N.Y.S.2d 952, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 888, 597 N.Y.S.2d 950, 613 N.E.2d 982;  see also People v. Keita, 246 A.D.2d 338, 666 N.Y.S.2d 911).

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

MEMORANDUM: