PEOPLE v. DOYLE (2008)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 205.25[2] ).   We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppress evidence, i.e., heroin, based on an inadequate chain of custody.  “ ‘[T]he circumstances provide reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition’ of the evidence” (People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310), and any deficiencies in the chain of custody went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility (see People v. Madison, 8 A.D.3d 956, 957, 778 N.Y.S.2d 593, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 709, 785 N.Y.S.2d 36, 818 N.E.2d 678).

 We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial based on the People's failure to indict him until nine months after the underlying incident (see generally People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445-447, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303).   Here, the nine-month delay was not unreasonable (see People v. Clark, 42 A.D.3d 957, 959, 838 N.Y.S.2d 760, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 960, 848 N.Y.S.2d 29, 878 N.E.2d 613;  People v. Ortiz, 16 A.D.3d 1130, 791 N.Y.S.2d 751, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 766, 801 N.Y.S.2d 261, 834 N.E.2d 1271), defendant was incarcerated based on a prior conviction throughout the delay (see People v. Jenkins, 2 A.D.3d 1390, 1391, 769 N.Y.S.2d 413), and he failed to establish that the delay resulted in any actual prejudice (see Clark, 42 A.D.3d at 959, 838 N.Y.S.2d 760).

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

MEMORANDUM: