People v. Carter
| Decision Date | 31 January 2012 |
| Citation | 91 A.D.3d 967,937 N.Y.S.2d 333,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00802 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Rudy CARTER, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00802
91 A.D.3d 967
937 N.Y.S.2d 333
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Rudy CARTER, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan. 31, 2012.
[937 N.Y.S.2d 333]
Joseph F. DeFelice, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Yael V. Levy of counsel), for respondent.
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.[91 A.D.3d 967] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Samenga, J., at trial; Peck, J., at sentence), rendered February 7, 2011, convicting him of rape in the first degree and
sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
CPL 380.30(1) mandates that the sentence of a criminal defendant “must be pronounced without unreasonable delay.” However, “[i]f the delay is caused by legal proceedings or other conduct of the defendant which frustrates the entry of judgment, it is excusable” ( People v. Drake, 61 N.Y.2d 359, 366, 474 N.Y.S.2d 276, 462 N.E.2d 376). This is true even where the delay is lengthy ( see People v. Davis, 29 A.D.3d 814, 816, 815 N.Y.S.2d 659; People v. Battles, 150 A.D.2d 785, 786, 542 N.Y.S.2d 218; People v. Headley, 134 A.D.2d 519, 519, 521 N.Y.S.2d 103).
In this case, the lengthy delay in sentencing was due solely to the fact that the defendant absconded in the middle of the trial and remained at large for 29 years before he was arrested and returned to the New York authorities. Although the defendant denies hiding, “the People do not have a duty to make efforts to apprehend an absconding defendant” ( People v. Davis, 29 A.D.3d at 816, 815 N.Y.S.2d 659; see People v. Headley, 134 A.D.2d at 519, 521 N.Y.S.2d 103). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the New York authorities were ever “actually aware” of his whereabouts ( see People v. James, 78 A.D.3d 862, 863, 911 N.Y.S.2d 633; People v. Reyes, 214 A.D.2d 233, 236, 632 N.Y.S.2d 123; People v. Battles, 150 A.D.2d at 785–786, 542 N.Y.S.2d 218; cf. People v. McNeil, 237 A.D.2d 622, 623, 655 N.Y.S.2d 1009). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 380.30(1).
Further, while the minutes of the trial have been lost and the sentencing judge determined...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Osman
...(see id. at 49, 790 N.Y.S.2d 421, 823 N.E.2d 827 ; Williams, 164 A.D.3d at 1146–1147, 84 N.Y.S.3d 123 ; 174 A.D.3d 1483 People v. Carter, 91 A.D.3d 967, 967–968, 937 N.Y.S.2d 333 [2d Dept. 2012], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 992, 945 N.Y.S.2d 647, 968 N.E.2d 1003 [2012] ; People v. Quinones, 36 A.D.......
-
People v. Colon
...296, 296, 723 N.Y.S.2d 361 [1st Dept. 2001], lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 557, 754 N.Y.S.2d 209, 784 N.E.2d 82 [2002] ; see also People v. Carter, 91 A.D.3d 967, 967–968, 937 N.Y.S.2d 333 [2d Dept. 2012], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 992, 945 N.Y.S.2d 647, 968 N.E.2d 1003 [2012] ; People v. Quinones, 36 A.D.......
-
People v. Cook
...dismissal of the indictment is not required (People v. Drake, 61 N.Y.2d at 366, 474 N.Y.S.2d 276, 462 N.E.2d 376 ; see People v. Carter, 91 A.D.3d 967, 937 N.Y.S.2d 333 ). Where a delay in sentencing is due to an absconding defendant, the People are under no obligation to make efforts to ap......
-
People v. Bethune
...delegated its authority to the prosecutor, who conducted most of the plea proceeding, thereby rendering his plea involuntary. The [91 A.D.3d 967] defendant's contention is without merit, as the proceeding was conducted in the County Court's presence [937 N.Y.S.2d 597] and under its supervis......