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
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 28, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

225 A.D.2d 496 (People v. Purtell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Soto
233 A.D.2d 243 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)