People v. Ling
Opinion of the Court
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered September 1,1994, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Posner, J.), of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds pursuant to CPL 30.20.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated by the seven-month delay between
At the time of the plea allocution, the defendant was expressly warned that if he failed to return to court on the date scheduled for sentencing, the court would impose an enhanced sentence. The defendant clearly acknowledged that he understood this condition of the plea agreement. Accordingly, once the defendant unjustifiably failed to appear for sentencing, the court was free to impose an enhanced sentence (see, People v Patterson, 211 AD2d 829; People v Thorpe, 189 AD2d 903).
Finally, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.