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, etc., respondent, v. David MONTANO, appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ira H. Margulis, J.), rendered July 5, 2022, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
“We note as an initial matter, that as of January 1, 2020 (see L 2019, ch 59, § 1, part KKK, §§ 1, 2), ‘[a]n order finally denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to [CPL 30.30(1)] shall be reviewable upon an appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction notwithstanding the fact that such judgment is entered upon a plea of guilty’ ” (People v. Gore, 224 A.D.3d 848, 848, 205 N.Y.S.3d 486, quoting CPL 30.30[6]). Here, since the judgment of conviction was rendered after the effective date of the statute, the defendant's challenge to the Supreme Court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial is reviewable on appeal, despite his plea of guilty (see id.; People v. Votaw, 190 A.D.3d 1162, 1163–1164, 139 N.Y.S.3d 455; cf. People v. George, 199 A.D.3d 831, 832, 154 N.Y.S.3d 269).
However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 558–564, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–257, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145; People v. Williams, 180 A.D.3d 814, 814, 115 N.Y.S.3d 897). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenge to the court's denial of his statutory speedy trial motion (see People v. Gore, 224 A.D.3d at 848–849, 205 N.Y.S.3d 486; People v. Votaw, 190 A.D.3d at 1163–1164, 139 N.Y.S.3d 455; People v. Person, 184 A.D.3d 447, 448, 126 N.Y.S.3d 14), as well as his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Cabral, 223 A.D.3d 839, 839, 203 N.Y.S.3d 702; People v. Stevens, 203 A.D.3d 958, 959–960, 163 N.Y.S.3d 615).
DILLON, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2022-05642
Decided: February 26, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)