| People v Robinson |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02352 [49 AD3d 1269] |
| March 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rasheen D.Robinson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Rasheen D. Robinson, defendant-appellant pro se. James B. Vargason, District Attorney, Auburn (Christopher T. Valdina of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, J.), renderedOctober 25, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale ofa controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty ofcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]).Contrary to the contention of defendant, his constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violatedby the 16-month period between the date of his arrest and the entry of his plea (see generallyPeople v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 444-445 [1975]; People v Manuel, 39 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2007], lv denied 9NY3d 878 [2007]). The 16-month period primarily was caused by County Court's delay inissuing an order determining defendant's omnibus motion and by court congestion (see Peoplev Cartledge, 147 AD2d 917 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 662 [1989]), and we note inaddition that defendant's incarceration during that period of time was attributable in part tounrelated charges (see People vJenkins, 2 AD3d 1390 [2003]).
Contrary to the further contention of defendant, he was not eligible to be sentencedpursuant to the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act ([DLRA] L 2004, ch 738) because he committed theinstant offense on May 6, 2004, prior to the date on which the DLRA became effective (see People v Utsey, 7 NY3d 398,403 [2006]; see also People vMoore, 38 AD3d 1313 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 848 [2007]). Defendant failedto preserve for our review his contention concerning his appearance in shackles before the grandjury (see People v Abron, 37 AD3d1163 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 980 [2007]; see also People v Winfield, 267AD2d 486 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 927, 95 NY2d 806 [2000]), as well as hiscontention concerning his alleged inability to confer with defense counsel during the grand juryproceeding (see People v Baker, 294 AD2d 888, 889 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d708 [2002]), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter ofdiscretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Present—Scudder,P.J., Martoche, Smith, Green and Gorski, JJ.