People v. Gee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gee

149 A.D.2d 728, 540 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 24, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 728 (People v. Gee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Gee, 149 A.D.2d 728, 540 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Orange County (King, J.), imposed July 5, 1984, upon his conviction of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty (Isseks, J.), the sentence being an indeterminate term of up to three years’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to an undischarged portion of a Federal term of imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the 12-year delay between his guilty plea and imposition of sentence deprived the sentencing court of jurisdiction is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, we find that the claim is specious. The delay was due to the defendant’s several escapes from custody during which his whereabouts were unknown for considerable periods of time. The defendant did not allege any facts indicating that the prosecution knew of his whereabouts and could have had him returned for sentence (see, People v Headley, 134 AD2d 519; People v Miller, 130 AD2d 449). Contrary to the defendant’s further contention, the sentence imposed by the court was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Orange County (King, J.), imposed July 5, 1984, upon his conviction of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty (Isseks, J.), the sentence being an indeterminate term of up to three years’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to an undischarged portion of a Federal term of imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the 12-year delay between his guilty plea and imposition of sentence deprived the sentencing court of jurisdiction is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, we find that the claim is specious. The delay was due to the defendant’s several escapes from custody during which his whereabouts were unknown for considerable periods of time. The defendant did not allege any facts indicating that the prosecution knew of his whereabouts and could have had him returned for sentence (see, People v Headley, 134 AD2d 519; People v Miller, 130 AD2d 449). Contrary to the defendant’s further contention, the sentence imposed by the court was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 728, 540 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gee-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack