Opinion · New York Court of Appeals
People v. Ramos
13 N.Y.3d 881
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- New York Court of Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 2009-12-15
- Topic
- bankruptcy
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.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Ramos. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 8 opinions
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.