Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York v. Ivan Calaff

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


February 19, 2013

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
RESPONDENT,
v.
IVAN CALAFF,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People v Calaff

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 19, 2013 Andrias, J.P., Renwick, Freedman, Gische, JJ.

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered March 24, 1993, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of three to six years, unanimously dismissed.

We exercise our discretionary authority, after considering the relevant factors (see People v Taveras, 10 NY3d 227, 233 [2008]), to dismiss this 19-year-old appeal on the ground of "failure of timely prosecution or perfection" (CPL 470.60[1]). The right to appeal is a statutory right that must be affirmatively exercised and timely asserted" (People v West, 100 NY2d 23, 26 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1019 [2003]). Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal in 1993. The sentencing minutes establish that defendant was advised of the simple procedural steps to be taken by defendant, personally, to obtain poor person relief and assigned appellate counsel (see id. at 26-29). However, defendant did not make the necessary request until 2012.

The People moved to dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute, and this Court denied the motion with leave to the People to raise this issue in their respondent's brief (M-3028, 2012 NY Slip Op 80175[U]). In his submissions on the motion, and on this appeal, defendant has attempted to explain his failure to follow the instructions he received at sentencing. His explanation is refuted by the sentencing minutes and otherwise without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 19, 2013

CLERK

20130219

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.