Judgment and order affirmed.
The facts surrounding the 23-month hiatus between defendant's arraignment and trial date are adequately detailed in the dissenting memorandum and so will not be repeated here. On those facts, we are of the view that the initial 13-month delay was due solely to the inaction of attorney Siegel and defendant in failing to advise the court as to defendant's actual lack of legal representation. The court and the prosecutor had every right to...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
