Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alfonso HERNANDEZ, etc., Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J., on speedy trial motion; Bonnie Wittner, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 30, 1997, convicting defendant of sexual abuse in the first degree and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender to concurrent terms of 6 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility.
Defendant's speedy trial motion was properly denied. The period following the denial of defendant's suppression motion was properly excluded as a reasonable time to prepare for trial (see, People v. Heine, 238 A.D.2d 212, 656 N.Y.S.2d 258). We conclude that this was “a reasonable period of delay resulting from ․ pre-trial motions” within the meaning of CPL 30.30(4)(a). The delay caused by the officer's injury was properly excluded as “exceptional circumstances” (CPL 30.30[4][g] ), since the People represented to the court that the officer had broken her ankle and could not walk, even with crutches (see, People v. Celestino, 201 A.D.2d 91, 95, 615 N.Y.S.2d 346; see also, People v. Womack, 229 A.D.2d 304, 645 N.Y.S.2d 16, affd. 90 N.Y.2d 974, 665 N.Y.S.2d 952, 688 N.E.2d 1034). Such a representation by the People was sufficient to permit the court to find that the adjournment was warranted.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion and conclude that the sentence was not based on any improper criteria.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 20, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)