People v. Valdes

• Decision Date: 07 October 1983
• Citation: People v. Valdes, 467 N.Y.S.2d 550, 121 Misc.2d 201 (N.Y. City Ct. 1983)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Niccolas VALDES, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

Page 550

467 N.Y.S.2d 550

121 Misc.2d 201

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v.Niccolas VALDES, Defendant.

Criminal Court of the City of New York New York County, Part AP1.

Oct. 7, 1983.

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., New York County, New York City, for the People; Richard Barrantes, New York City, of counsel.

The Legal Aid Society, for defendant; Mark F. DeWan and Caesar Cirigliana, New York City, of counsel.

EDWARD J. McLAUGHLIN, Judge:

The defendant, who pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled substance on June 30, 1976, is before the court over six years later for sentence.Defendant, however, contends that the passage of time has caused the court to lose jurisdiction, rendering it unable to impose sentence.

A synopsis of the facts is necessary to determine the applicable law.When the plea was accepted, the court promised defendant a six-month sentence to be served as a resident of the SERA drug program.That judge also said that the defendant would receive one year in jail if he left the program.The defendant forfeited $200.00 bail when he failed to appear on the date of sentence.Four months later the defendant was returned to court when the bench warrant was executed.A judge fixed bail of a five-hundred-dollar bond or a $350.00 cash alternative and ordered a pre-sentence report.The defendant posted bail, yet failed to appear on the sentence date of January 31, 1977.On February 12, 1977, the defendant was arrested again; $5,000 bail was fixed on the new robbery charge and posted.Defendant failed to appear in Supreme Court on March 23, 1977 on the robbery case.The defendant was not returned to Criminal Court in connection with this case during the eighteen-day period from February 12, 1977 until he posted bail.

The issue presented is whether either the setting of bail, while awaiting a pre-sentence report, or the failure to bring the defendant to Criminal Court on this case during the eighteen days caused the six-year delay.

While every defendant must be sentenced without unreasonable delay (CPL 380.30), not every extensive interval between conviction and sentence compels a dismissal.

In People ex rel. Harty v. Fay, 10 N.Y.2d 374, 223 N.Y.S.2d 468, 179 N.E.2d 483[1961] inordinate and unexplained delays were condemned.The Court of Appeals declared that defendants in this state need not affirmatively demand sentencing.This, however, does not mean that when a defendant's own conduct, such as submitting motions (People v. Drake, 92 A.D.2d 1011, 461 N.Y.S.2d 509[3d Dept, 1983] ) or his failure to appear, causes the delay that he or she can expect a dismissal.The Court of Appeals did not specify the delays which would justify gaps between conviction and sentence as extensive as here.

Absconding defendants are treated differently from those who are not sentenced due to a lack of diligence on the part of the State.As a person knowingly may waive the right to be present at trial (People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 454 N.Y.S.2d 967, 440 N.E.2d 1313[1982];People v. Epps, 37 N.Y.2d 343, 372 N.Y.S.2d 606, 334 N.E.2d 566[1975] ), a defendant who flees may be sentenced in absentia (Root v. Kapelman, 67 A.D.2d 131, 414 N.Y.S.2d 707[1st Dept.1979] ).Defendant's conduct, in repeatedly failing to return to court for sentence, places him in the category of absconding defendants.His arguments that the court should have remanded him rather than fix bail do not merit discussion.More significantly, he argues that the failure to lodge a warrant, or take other steps to bring him to court while he was incarcerated on the robbery charge, is akin to the failure of law enforcement authorities to act speedily to acquire custody of one detained in...