People v. Ramos, 921 N.E.2d 598 (N.Y. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Ramos, 921 N.E.2d 598 (N.Y. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Mendez, 104 A.D.3d 1145 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2013)
How cited ↗
Cited for
13 N.Y.3d at 882 Preserving arguments regarding ex post facto and due process3 citing caseswhereabouts were “continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable,” despite the reasonable diligence of the detectives assigned to the case, until his…opening of page *882 (no citing court says what it cites this page for) · 2 listed here
  • People v. Mendez, 104 A.D.3d 1145 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his conviction of section 130.75 (1) (b) violates the ex post facto prohibition in article I (§ 10 [1]) of the US Constitution (see People v Ramos, 13 NY3d 881, 882 [2009], re…
  • People v. Carey, 92 A.D.3d 1224 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2012).published
    Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that his conviction of section 130.75 (1) (b) violates the ex post facto prohibition in article I (§ 10 [1]) of the US Constitution (see People v Ramos, 13 NY3d 881, 882 [2009], r…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Ramon Ramos, Appellant
215 SSM 44.
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 15, 2009.
Published opinion
921 N.E.2d 598
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Legal Aid Society, Criminal Appeals Bureau, New York City (William B. Carney and Steven Banks of counsel), for appellant., Ramon Ramos, appellant pro se., Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (Rebecca Height of counsel), for respondent.
Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

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.