From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Turner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 5, 1994
203 A.D.2d 22 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 5, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (George Roberts, J.).


On August 15, 1989, defendant entered a plea of guilty to second degree robbery in satisfaction of an indictment arising out of the robbery of a cab driver on February 3rd of that year. Sentencing was set for September 6th and the matter adjourned. Sentence, however, was not imposed until August 6, 1990, at which time defendant received the term of 4 to 8 years he had been promised in return for his guilty plea. Defense counsel then moved to vacate the plea on the ground that the court had lost jurisdiction as a result of excessive delay in imposing sentence.

Aside from statements by defendant that he had been "shuttled back and forth on numerous occasions" and had "been brought back to New York twice and nothing has happened", the record is devoid of any evidence concerning the efforts of the People to ascertain defendant's whereabouts and produce him for sentencing. The People's brief concedes that the "court file has been misplaced or lost" and offers a "chronology of events", taken from "information and documents contained in the District Attorney's Office file", that include defendant's return to the District of Columbia under a writ of habeas corpus received on September 24, 1989. The file and documents referred to in the brief, however, are not included in the record on appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 380.30 (1), "[s]entence must be pronounced without unreasonable delay." The "burden rests upon the prosecutor and the court to conclude the proceedings with reasonable promptness and the failure to do so may result in a loss of jurisdiction * * * [I]n all cases the initiative rests with the court and the prosecution, not the defendant" (People v Drake, 61 N.Y.2d 359, 362). In the absence of a sufficient record to permit appellate review of the explanation offered to excuse the delay in sentencing, the "issue can only be resolved at a hearing where the underlying facts can be developed and evaluated" (People v Miller, 130 A.D.2d 449, 450-451, citing People v McLaurin, 38 N.Y.2d 123, 126).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Turner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 5, 1994
203 A.D.2d 22 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Turner

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TYRONE TURNER…

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

Date published: Apr 5, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 22 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
610 N.Y.S.2d 194

Citing Cases

People v. Turner

Defendant argues that an 11-month delay from September 6, 1989, the date scheduled for sentencing, to August…

People v. Marshall

Considering that the trial court is in a position to take proof and make factual calculations regarding…