The People, etc., respondent, v. Santos Urbina, appellant. (2026)

Submitted—April 28, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

G/

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Karen M. Wilutis, J.), rendered March 7, 2025, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

On May 3, 2017, the defendant was arrested and was arraigned on a felony complaint the next day and posted bail.  On May 12, 2017, the defendant was detained by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement because he allegedly was present in the country illegally, and in June 2017, an immigration judge ordered his removal to El Salvador.  On August 11, 2017, the People were informed that the defendant had been deported.  On August 25, 2017, the defendant was indicted, and the People filed the indictment with the court on August 30, 2017.

The People began extradition efforts in late September 2017 by preparing an INTERPOL red notice, coordinating with the United States Marshals NY/NJ Regional Fugitive Task Force and Suffolk County law enforcement, and ensuring that the defendant was entered into national and international databases.  The People submitted the red notice to INTERPOL on October 18, 2017.

Thereafter, the defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that he had been denied his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial.  On October 29, 2024, the County Court denied those branches of the defendant's motion.  The defendant subsequently pleaded guilty and was sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain.  The defendant appeals.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see generally People v. Thomas, 34 NY3d 545;  People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248).  The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contentions that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255) and that the County Court should have granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was denied the statutory right to a speedy trial (see People v. Smith, 237 AD3d 1111, 1112;  People v. Gore, 224 AD3d 848, 849).

An appeal waiver does not preclude a constitutional speedy trial claim (see People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255).  Thus, the defendant's constitutional speedy trial claim survives his valid appeal waiver.

“ ‘In determining whether a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the Court of Appeals has articulated five factors to be considered:  (1) the extent of the delay;  (2) the reason for the delay;  (3) the nature of the underlying charges;  (4) any extended period of pretrial incarceration;  and (5) any impairment of the defendant's defense’ ” (People v. Keating, 183 AD3d 595, 596, quoting People v. Metellus, 157 AD3d 821, 823).  “Violation of this right results in dismissal of an indictment” (People v. Romeo, 12 NY3d 51, 55).

Where a defendant is incarcerated outside of the state, the People must “make diligent, good faith efforts to secure his presence in the state for arraignment and trial” (id. at 57).  The People's failure to file an extradition request to a country with which the United States has an extradition treaty demonstrates a lack of due diligence (see id.;  People v. Barba, 135 AD3d 950, 951).

Here, the County Court appropriately balanced the requisite factors in determining that the defendant's constitutional speedy trial rights were not violated (see People v. Keating, 183 AD3d at 596).  After the defendant was indicted, the People promptly declared their readiness for trial within four months of his arrest.  Furthermore, after the defendant was deported, the People exercised due diligence in attempting to secure the defendant's presence for prosecution by diligently filing the INTERPOL red notice and, once they learned of the defendant's whereabouts, an extradition request (see id.;  People v. Barba, 135 AD3d at 951;  cf.  People v. Romeo, 12 NY3d at 57).  The People could not control how long it took for the government of El Salvador to honor the request.

Accordingly, that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his constitutional rights to a speedy trial had been violated was properly denied.

IANNACCI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, VOUTSINAS and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court