| People v Sze |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00380 [113 AD3d 795] |
| January 22, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kwok Sze, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Laurie Sapakoff, StevenBender, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Cohen, J.), rendered October 13, 2009, convicting him of course of sexual conductagainst a child in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that he did not validly waive his right to be prosecuted by anindictment is not precluded by his plea of guilty or his valid waiver of his right to appeal(see People v Davenport,106 AD3d 1197, 1197 [2013]). However, contrary to the defendant's contention, hedid validly waive his right to be prosecuted by an indictment (see CPL 195.10;People v Zanghi, 79 NY2d 815 [1991]).
" 'A criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed both by the SixthAmendment to the United States Constitution (US Const 6th, 14th Amends) and bystatute (CPL 30.20; Civil Rights Law § 12)' " (People v Franco, 104 AD3d 790, 790 [2013], quoting People v Romeo, 12 NY3d51, 55 [2009], cert denied 558 US 817 [2009]). To the extent that thedefendant claims a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, his contentionsare without merit. To the extent that the defendant claims that his statutory right to aspeedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 was violated, he has forfeited appellate review of thisclaim by pleading guilty (see People v O'Brien, 56 NY2d 1009, 1010 [1982];People v Howe, 56 NY2d 622, 624 [1982]; People v Franco, 104 AD3dat 790).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of hisclaim of ineffective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffectiveassistance affected the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]; People v Dunne, 106 AD3d928, 928-929 [2013]; People v Smith, 102 AD3d 896, 897 [2013]). Insofar as thedefendant contends that his counsel's conduct affected the voluntariness of his plea,contrary to the defendant's contention, his attorney provided him with meaningfulrepresentation (see People vCaban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708,712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson,Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.