People v. Purtell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Purtell

225 A.D.2d 496, 639 N.Y.2d 814, 639 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3289

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 496 (People v. Purtell) 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. Purtell, 225 A.D.2d 496, 639 N.Y.2d 814, 639 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

While a defendant must be sentenced "without unreasonable delay” (CPL 380.30 [1]), delay caused by a defendant’s conduct is excusable (People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359, 366). Defendant first absconded in 1989, after pleading guilty to grand larceny. Thereafter, he was arrested and convicted of various crimes in several different States, and he repeatedly jumped bail that was set on New York fugitive warrants, after using aliases and false pedigrees. Although the 41/2 year period of delay in imposing sentence is considerable, it was entirely attributable to defendant’s conduct, and accordingly, the delay was not unreasonable. Defendant’s sentence was not excessive in light of his extensive criminal record. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

While a defendant must be sentenced "without unreasonable delay” (CPL 380.30 [1]), delay caused by a defendant’s conduct is excusable (People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359, 366). Defendant first absconded in 1989, after pleading guilty to grand larceny. Thereafter, he was arrested and convicted of various crimes in several different States, and he repeatedly jumped bail that was set on New York fugitive warrants, after using aliases and false pedigrees. Although the 41/2 year period of delay in imposing sentence is considerable, it was entirely attributable to defendant’s conduct, and accordingly, the delay was not unreasonable. Defendant’s sentence was not excessive in light of his extensive criminal record. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 496, 639 N.Y.2d 814, 639 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-purtell-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack