PEOPLE v. MADISON (1999)

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (La Buda, J.), rendered April 6, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Defendant, a prison inmate, was charged with the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and promoting prison contraband in the first degree, based upon allegations that he had been in possession of two razor blades while incarcerated.   Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment.   In exchange, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 1 1/212 to 3 years, the most lenient term that could have been imposed, to run consecutively with the term of incarceration defendant was already serving at the time the instant crime was committed.

 Defendant appeals, contending that County Court erred by not “entertaining” his application to dismiss the indictment based on his assertion that he was denied a speedy trial (see, CPL 30.30).   The record discloses, however, that County Court had granted defendant's request for a pretrial hearing on this issue and that he nonetheless chose to plead guilty before the hearing could be held.   It is also worth noting that at the plea hearing, defendant specifically waived appellate review of the speedy trial issue.   As his waiver was clearly knowing, intelligent and voluntary, defendant's challenge to the judgment based upon an alleged statutory speedy trial violation is not properly before us for review (see, People v. Grandberry, 223 A.D.2d 723, 637 N.Y.S.2d 203, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 1020, 644 N.Y.S.2d 153, 666 N.E.2d 1067;  see also, People v. Cooper, 226 A.D.2d 1115, 642 N.Y.S.2d 131, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 982, 649 N.Y.S.2d 389, 672 N.E.2d 615).

 To the extent that defendant contends that there was a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, this contention, while reviewable by this court (see, People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 9, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022), is nonetheless without merit.   A “defendant who initially interposes a constitutional speedy trial claim but subsequently abandons it before a determination on the claim is made cannot subsequently raise that claim on appeal” (People v. Sutton, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 282, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108).

Defendant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit or unpreserved for our review.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

SPAIN, J.

MERCURE, J.P., CREW III, PETERS and CARPINELLO, JJ., concur.