| People v Doyle |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03816 [50 AD3d 1546] |
| April 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MichaelDoyle, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald L. Stout, District Attorney, Warsaw (Vincent A. Hemming of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), renderedOctober 26, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attemptedpromoting prison contraband in the first 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 ofattempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00,205.25 [2]). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppressevidence, i.e., heroin, based on an inadequate chain of custody. " '[T]he circumstances providereasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition' of the evidence" (People vJulian, 41 NY2d 340, 343 [1977]), and any deficiencies in the chain of custody went to theweight of the evidence, not its admissibility (see People v Madison, 8 AD3d 956, 957 [2004], lv denied3 NY3d 709 [2004]).
We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied his constitutional right to aspeedy trial based on the People's failure to indict him until nine months after the underlyingincident (see generally People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445-447 [1975]). Here, thenine-month delay was not unreasonable (see People v Clark, 42 AD3d 957, 959 [2007], lv denied 9NY3d 960 [2007]; People v Ortiz,16 AD3d 1130 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 766 [2005]), defendant was incarceratedbased on a prior conviction throughout the delay (see People v Jenkins, 2 AD3d 1390, 1391 [2003]), and he failed toestablish that the delay resulted in any actual prejudice (see Clark, 42 AD3d at 959).Present—Martoche, J.P., Centra, Lunn, Peradotto and Green, JJ.