From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1989
149 A.D.2d 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

April 24, 1989

Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (King, J.).


Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant's claim that the 12-year delay between his guilty plea and imposition of sentence deprived the sentencing court of jurisdiction is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, we find that the claim is specious. The delay was due to the defendant's several escapes from custody during which his whereabouts were unknown for considerable periods of time. The defendant did not allege any facts indicating that the prosecution knew of his whereabouts and could have had him returned for sentence (see, People v. Headley, 134 A.D.2d 519; People v. Miller, 130 A.D.2d 449). Contrary to the defendant's further contention, the sentence imposed by the court was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Gee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 1989
149 A.D.2d 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Gee

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DONALD GEE, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 24, 1989

Citations

149 A.D.2d 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
540 N.Y.S.2d 334

Citing Cases

People v. Marshall

Promptness in sentencing has long been an important goal in the criminal justice system, in terms of fairness…

People v. Bishop

In any event, the contention is without merit. Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v…