| People v Ortiz |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01859 [49 AD3d 279] |
| March 4, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ruben Ortiz, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Eleanor J. Ostrow of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, J., at motions; EdwinTorres, J., at suppression hearing; Charles H. Solomon, J., at plea and sentence), rendered June21, 2005, convicting defendant of attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him, asa second felony offender, to a term of 12½ to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, which originallycharged second-degree murder, made on the ground of preindictment delay. Defendant has notestablished any prejudice from the 11-year delay, which was caused by the fact that the policehad no witnesses or suspects, and, despite good faith efforts, did not ascertain the identity of theperpetrator until after the advent of new fingerprint comparison technology (see United Statesv Lovasco, 431 US 783 [1977]; People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241, 252-255 [1978];People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442 [1975]). Defendant's arguments to the contrary,including those that improperly cite documents that are not part of the record, are without merit.
Defendant's written and oral waivers, taken together, establish a valid and enforceable waiverof the right to appeal (see People vRamos, 7 NY3d 737 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]). The court expresslyinformed defendant that as a condition of the plea he was agreeing to waive his right to appeal,and the court separated that right from the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea. Thiswaiver forecloses review of defendant's procedural [*2]andsubstantive claims relating to his suppression motion, and his excessive sentence claim. In anyevent, we find all of these claims without merit. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Sweenyand Catterson, JJ.