People v. Leader

2017 NY Slip Op 5022, 151 A.D.3d 1878, 54 N.Y.S.3d 357
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 16, 2017
Docket886 KA 16-00616
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5022 (People v. Leader) 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. Leader, 2017 NY Slip Op 5022, 151 A.D.3d 1878, 54 N.Y.S.3d 357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), rendered December 23, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20). Defendant contends that he was denied his right to be sentenced without an unreasonable delay in violation of CPL 380.30 (1) (see People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359, 364 [1984]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant preserved his contention for our review by objecting to the delay (see People v Washington, 121 AD3d 1583, 1583 [2014]), we conclude that it lacks merit. “[O]nly unexcusable or unduly long delays violate the statutory directive” (People v Dissottle, 68 AD3d 1542, 1543 [2009]; see Drake, 61 NY2d at 366) and, here, defendant was sentenced fewer than six months after he entered his guilty plea. The portion of that period attributable to defendant’s grand jury testimony against a codefendant is excusable (see People v Ingvarsdottir, 118 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2014]), and another portion of that period was attributable to at least two adjournments requested by defense counsel (see People v Brooks, 118 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 959 [2014]). We reject defendant’s further contention *1879 that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe.

Present—Whalen, P.J., Peradotto, DeJoseph, Curran and Winslow, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Drake
462 N.E.2d 376 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
People v. Dissottle
68 A.D.3d 1542 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Ingvarsdottir
118 A.D.3d 1023 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Brooks
118 A.D.3d 1123 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Washington
121 A.D.3d 1583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 5022, 151 A.D.3d 1878, 54 N.Y.S.3d 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leader-nyappdiv-2017.