| People v Faro |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03451 [83 AD3d 1569] |
| April 29, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frederick M.Faro, Appellant. |
—[*1] Frederick M. Faro, defendant-appellant pro se. Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Joseph D. Waldorf of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), renderedNovember 26, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalpossession of a forged instrument in the second 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 possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25). Tothe extent that defendant contends in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that he was deniedhis statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30, that contention is forfeited by his pleaof guilty (see People v O'Brien, 56 NY2d 1009, 1010 [1982]; People v Tracey, 13 AD3d 1174[2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 836 [2005]). Although the further contention of defendant inhis main and pro se supplemental briefs that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedytrial survives the guilty plea (see People v Allen, 86 NY2d 599, 602 [1995]; People v Woodruff, 9 AD3d 896[2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 713 [2004]; People v Robinson, 1 AD3d 1019 [2003], lv denied 2NY3d 745 [2004]), it must be preserved for our review (see People v Mayo, 45 AD3d 1361, 1362 [2007]). Even assuming,arguendo, that the brief reference to CPL 30.20 in defendant's omnibus motion was sufficient topreserve that contention for our review, we conclude that it is without merit. Upon considerationof the factors set forth in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]), we concludethat the seven-month delay at issue, the majority of which was at the request of defendant or withhis consent, did not violate defendant's right to a speedy trial.
The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have considered the remaining contentions ofdefendant in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit.Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.