Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Ortiz

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


March 26, 2009

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
CARLOS ORTIZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered August 1, 2007, as amended June 19, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 21/2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Andrias, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Acosta, JJ.

3499/88

The court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, made on the ground of delay in sentencing (see CPL 380.30[1]; People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359, 366 [1984]). Defendant failed to appear for sentencing as the result of being arrested on another charge, at which time he gave false pedigree information. After he was released from custody on the new charge, he failed to return to court for sentencing on this case, and he then evaded being returned for sentencing by giving various aliases and false pedigree information in connection with his many subsequent arrests and incarcerations in New York. As the 18-year delay in sentencing was attributable to defendant's conduct, his claim that the delay was unreasonable is unavailing (see e.g. People v Allen, 309 AD2d 624 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 567 [2003]; People v Chase, 306 AD2d 167 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 619 [2003]; People v McQuilken, 249 AD2d 35 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 901 [1998]; cf. People v Sigismundi, 89 NY2d 587 [1997]). There is no merit to defendant's suggestion that even if a defendant schemes to avoid detection, law enforcement authorities are still responsible for the delay if more efficient methods would have foiled the scheme at an earlier date; such an argument is akin to an escapee contending that the pursuing officer should have run faster.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20090326

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.