People v. Summers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Summers

80 A.D.3d 520, 914 N.Y.S.2d 634

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 A.D.3d 520 (People v. Summers) 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. Summers, 80 A.D.3d 520, 914 N.Y.S.2d 634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda S. Soloff, J, at plea; Michael R. Ambrecht, J, at dismissal motion and sentence), rendered August 5, 2008, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, made on the ground of delay in sentencing (see CPL 380.30 [1]), since the delay was not excessive and was occasioned by “plausible reasons” that should not trigger a loss of jurisdiction (see People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359, 366 [1984]). The only delay that defendant seeks to attribute to the People is a nine-month period where he was incarcerated in another state and the People sought to extradite him. Although the People made reasonable efforts to secure defendant’s prompt attendance for sentencing, those efforts were frustrated by actions of authorities in the other state.

Defendant’s excessive sentence claim is moot because he has completed his sentence (see e.g. People v Barnes, 72 AD3d 516 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 747 [2010]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda S. Soloff, J, at plea; Michael R. Ambrecht, J, at dismissal motion and sentence), rendered August 5, 2008, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, made on the ground of delay in sentencing (see CPL 380.30 [1]), since the delay was not excessive and was occasioned by “plausible reasons” that should not trigger a loss of jurisdiction (see People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359, 366 [1984]). The only delay that defendant seeks to attribute to the People is a nine-month period where he was incarcerated in another state and the People sought to extradite him. Although the People made reasonable efforts to secure defendant’s prompt attendance for sentencing, those efforts were frustrated by actions of authorities in the other state.

Defendant’s excessive sentence claim is moot because he has completed his sentence (see e.g. People v Barnes, 72 AD3d 516 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 747 [2010]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.3d 520, 914 N.Y.S.2d 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-summers-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack