People v. Hampton, 226 A.D.2d 824 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Hampton, 226 A.D.2d 824 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Allain v. Oriola-Allain (nyappdiv, 2014-10-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Allain v. Oriola-Allain
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Furthermore, this Court, like the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division in each of the other judicial departments, has dismissed appeals by fugitives in criminal proceedings “on the comparable ground that ‘the appellant is not presently available to obey the mandate of the Court in the event of an affirmance’ ” (Matter of Skiff-Murray v Murray, 305 AD2d at 753 , quoting People v Sullivan, 28 NY2d 900, 901 [1971]; see People v Howe, 256 AD2d 476 [1998]; People v Jones, 245 AD2d 1144, 1145 [1997]; People v Mota, 210 AD2d 435 [1994]; People v Smith, 115 AD2d 625 [1985]; People v Dav…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
To the extent that this issue is properly before us, our review of this nonjurisdictional claim is precluded by defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Morelli, 46 AD3d 1215, 1217 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 814 [2008]), as well as his unchallenged guilty plea (see People v Clute, 226 AD2d 824, 824 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1020 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
To the extent that this issue is properly before us, our review of this nonjurisdictional claim is precluded by defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Morelli, 46 AD3d 1215, 1217 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 814 [2008]), as well as his unchallenged guilty plea (see People v Clute, 226 AD2d 824, 824 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1020 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Skiff-Murray v. Murray
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Although no New York appellate court has adopted the fugitive disentitlement doctrine by name, the Appellate Division in each department and the Court of Appeals have dismissed fugitives’ appeals in criminal proceedings on the comparable ground that “the appellant is not presently available to obey the mandate of the Court in the event of an affirmance” (People v Sullivan, 28 NY2d 900 , 901 [1971]; see People v Figueroa, 82 NY2d 819 [1993]; People v Del Rio, 14 NY2d 165, 169-170 [1964], cert denied 379 US 939 [1964]; People v Hernandez, 266 AD2d 116 [1st Dept 1999]; People v Howe, 256 AD…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Allen
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
We have stated, however, that "any infirmity in the Grand Jury proceedings arising out of the claimed conflict of interest * * * represents only the kind of nonjurisdictional defect which defendant must be held to have waived by [a] guilty plea” (People v Bump, 103 AD2d 974, 975 ; see, People v Clute, 226 AD2d 824 , lv denied 88 NY2d 1020 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Leslie L. Hampton
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 11, 1996.
226 A.D.2d 824
White.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
White, J.

Ap[*825] peal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered July 11, 1994, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of burglary in the third degree and sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of 2 to 4 years. Defendant subsequently instituted this appeal; however, during its pendency defendant absconded from a work release program and a warrant was issued for his apprehension. Defendant’s whereabouts are unknown and the People now move to dismiss the appeal, while counsel for defendant states that he has no knowledge of the location of defendant and that he has been unable to comply with 22 NYCRR 800.14.

Since defendant is not presently available to obey the mandate of County Court in the event of an affirmance, the appeal should be dismissed (see, People v Howe, 32 NY2d 766; People v Sullivan, 28 NY2d 900; People v Del Rio, 14 NY2d 165, cert denied 379 US 939; Matter of Rios v City of New York, 180 AD2d 801; People v Southerland, 136 AD2d 662).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.