CARLSON, SHANE, PEOPLE v ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1046
    KA 16-00297
    PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    SHANE K. CARLSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    BATTISTI & GARZO, P.C., BINGHAMTON (MICHAEL A. GARZO, JR., OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL),
    FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Peter C.
    Bradstreet, J.), rendered October 21, 2013. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a
    controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminally
    using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, assault in the second
    degree, tampering with physical evidence, resisting arrest and driving
    while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of
    alcohol and any drug or drugs.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
    upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, two counts of criminal
    possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law
    § 220.16 [1], [12]). As part of the plea agreement, defendant was
    placed on interim probation and, pursuant to CPL 390.30 (6) (a), his
    sentencing was adjourned for one year. Defendant contends that County
    Court should have dismissed the indictment because sentencing did not
    occur until more than one year after he pleaded guilty. We reject
    that contention.
    In pertinent part, CPL 390.30 provides that, “[i]n any case where
    the court determines that a defendant is eligible for a sentence of
    probation, the court, after consultation with the prosecutor and upon
    the consent of the defendant, may adjourn the sentencing to a
    specified date and order that the defendant be placed on interim
    probation supervision. In no event may the sentencing be adjourned
    for a period exceeding one year from the date the conviction is
    entered, except that upon good cause shown, the court may, upon the
    defendant’s consent, extend the period for an additional one year
    where the defendant has agreed to and is still participating in a
    -2-                          1046
    KA 16-00297
    substance abuse treatment program in connection with a . . . drug
    court” (CPL 390.30 [6] [a] [emphasis added]).
    Here, defendant entered the guilty plea on June 4, 2012, and a
    sentencing hearing was scheduled for the morning of June 3, 2013. On
    that date, however, the court rescheduled the sentencing to the
    afternoon. Defense counsel informed the court that he was unavailable
    that afternoon, and sentencing was adjourned, upon the request of
    defense counsel, to June 17, 2013. Under the circumstances of this
    case, we conclude that the court properly denied defendant’s
    subsequent motion to dismiss the indictment based on the court’s
    failure to sentence him within one year of the date of his guilty plea
    inasmuch as the delay resulted from defense counsel’s request for an
    adjournment.
    Entered:   December 23, 2016                    Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 16-00297

Filed Date: 12/23/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/23/2016