People v. Branch, 281 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Branch, 281 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“since the defendant claimed that he acted in self-defense, the issue of his motive was significant.”
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State of West Virginia v. Victor Lee Thompson (wva, 2026-03-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State of West Virginia v. Victor Lee Thompson
W. Va. · 2026 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
since the defendant claimed that he acted in self-defense, the issue of his motive was significant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cecere
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The defendant’s claim that the Supreme Court had been divested of jurisdiction over him because of the passage of time between his plea and the imposition of the sentence is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Young, 283 AD2d 597 [2001]; People v Branch, 281 AD2d 427, 428 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Savage
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
The defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was unequivocal, and was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579 [2004]; People v Campbell, 25 AD3d 562 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 832 [2006]; People v Zuga, 306 AD2d 505, 506 [2003]; People v Riddick, 299 AD2d 562, 563 [2002]; People v Harris, 292 AD2d 633, 634 [2002]; People v Benitez, 281 AD2d 427, 427 [2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Deshaun Branch
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 5, 2001.
281 A.D.2d 427
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2075
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered July 6, 1999, convicting him of[*428] burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) a resentence of the same court, imposed February 24, 2000.

Ordered that the judgment and resentence are affirmed.

The defendant’s remarks at the time of his original sentencing on July 6, 1999, did not constitute a motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis of an unreasonable delay in sentencing. Accordingly, the defendant’s contention that the indictment should be dismissed for this reason is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Richardson, 262 AD2d 427; People v Marshall, 228 AD2d 15; People v Thompson, 193 AD2d 841). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.