green
Positive treatment
18.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Colon (Juan)
(3×)
Defendant forfeited review of his speedy trial claim by pleading guilty ( see People v Suarez , 55 NY2d 940, 942 [1982]; People v Joyce , 226 AD3d 541, 542 [2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 1019 [2024]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Selph (Chad)
(2×)
Defendant forfeited review of his speedy trial claim by pleading guilty ( see People v Suarez , 55 NY2d 940, 942 [1982]; People v Joyce , 226 AD3d 541 [2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 1019 [2024]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Joyce
Defendant forfeited review of his speedy trial claim by pleading guilty ( see People v Suarez , 55 NY2d 940, 942 [1982]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Joyce
Defendant forfeited review of his speedy trial claim by pleading guilty ( see People v Suarez , 55 NY2d 940, 942 [1982]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Person
Formerly, a defendant who pleaded guilty automatically forfeited appellate review of a denial of a statutory speedy trial motion, as opposed to a constitutional claim ( People v Suarez , 55 NY2d 940, 942 [1982]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hernandez
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
However, that promise cannot be fulfilled ( see People v O'Brien , 56 NY2d at 1010 ; People v Suarez , 55 NY2d at 942; People v Smith , 155 AD3d at 978 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Paduano
By pleading guilty, however, defendant forfeited that contention (see People v O’Brien, 56 NY2d 1009, 1010 [1982]; People v Suarez, 55 NY2d 940, 942 [1982]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Smith
A defendant who has entered a plea of guilty “forfeit [s] his [or her] right to claim that he [or she] was deprived of a speedy trial under CPL 30.30” (People v O’Brien, 56 NY2d 1009, 1010 [1982]; see People v Suarez, 55 NY2d 940, 942 [1982]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Smith (Rhonda)
(2×)
It has been the law prior to January 1, 2020 that, when a "defendant enter[s] a plea of guilty[,] he forfeit[s] his right to claim that he was deprived of a speedy trial under CPL 30.30" ( People v O'Brien , 56 NY2d 1009, 1010 [1982]; see also People v Suarez , 55 NY2d 940, 942 [*4][1982]; People v Smith , 155 AD3d 977, 978 [2017]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Colter (Jimar)
On appeal, defendant contends that his motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the ground that his statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights had been violated should have been granted.{**76 Misc 3d at 30} It has been the rule that when a "defendant enter[s] a plea of guilty he forfeit[s] his right to claim that he was deprived of a speedy trial under CPL 30.30" ( People v O'Brien , 56 NY2d 1009, 1010 [1982]; see also People v Suarez , 55 NY2d 940, 942 [1982]; People v Smith , 155 AD3d 977, 978 [2017]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Omodunbi (Olakunle)
It has been the rule that when a "defendant enter[s] a plea of guilty he forfeit[s] his right to claim that he was deprived of a speedy trial under CPL 30.30" ( People v O'Brien , 56 NY2d 1009, 1010 [1982]; see also People v Suarez , 55 NY2d 940, 942 [1982]; People v Smith , 155 AD3d 977, 978 [2017]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Enrique Suarez
v.
Enrique Suarez
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 11, 1982.
434 N.E.2d 245
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Marshall Nadan for appellant., Michael Kavanaugh, District Attorney (Susan Shaw of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 49 opinions | Published
[*942] OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant’s contention that his rights under CPL 30.30 were violated was forfeited when he entered his plea of guilty (People v Friscia, 51 NY2d 845). In addition, and for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division, we find there was no violation of defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial (see People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442).
Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum; Chief Judge Cooke and Judge Jones taking no part.
Order affirmed.