New York Court of Appeals, 2009

People v. Ramos

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 15, 2009 · Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur

921 N.E.2d 598; 13 N.Y.3d 881; 2009 NY Slip Op 9270; 893 N.Y.S.2d 831 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Ramos v. Racette (2d Cir. 2013)
MENDEZ, FELIX, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Mendez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Mendez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
CAREY, CARL, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Carey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Jackson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The prosecution was not barred by the five-year statute of limitations pursuant to CPL 30.10 (2) (b). Although the indictment was nearly 10 years after the incident, defendant’s *882 whereabouts were “continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable,” despite the reasonable diligence of the detectives assigned to the case, until his DNA profile from the rape kit taken from the victim was matched to DNA evidence taken from defendant pursuant to a subsequent incarceration (CPL 30.10 [4] [a] [ii]; see also Executive Law § 995 [7]; § 995-c [3]; People v Seda, 93 NY2d 307, 311 [1999]; People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]).

Defendant’s contentions that the extension of the statute of limitations in this case constituted an ex post facto law and that his sentencing as a persistent felony offender violated his right to due process of law are not preserved for review. Defendant’s remaining arguments lack merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.