You are here: / / A COURT DOES NOT LOSE JURISDICTION OVER SENTENCING A DEFENDANT PURSUANT...
,

A COURT DOES NOT LOSE JURISDICTION OVER SENTENCING A DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 390.30 IF MORE THAN A YEAR ELAPSES BETWEEN CONVICTION AND SENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined County Court did not lose jurisdiction to sentence defendant because more than a year elapsed between conviction and sentencing:

CPL 390.30 provides in relevant part that, “[i]n any case where the court determines that a defendant is eligible for a sentence of probation, the court, after consultation with the prosecutor and upon the consent of the defendant, may adjourn the sentencing to a specified date and order that the defendant be placed on interim probation supervision. In no event may the sentencing be adjourned for a period exceeding one year from the date the conviction is entered, except that upon good cause shown, the court may, upon the defendant’s consent, extend the period for an additional one year where the defendant has agreed to and is still participating in a substance abuse treatment program in connection with a . . . drug court” … . … [N]othing in CPL 390.30 (6) (a) states that a failure to sentence a defendant within one year of the date of conviction is a jurisdictional defect or that sentencing after that one-year period is prohibited … . People v Bryant, 2023 NY Slip Op 04857, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: CPL 390.30 does not deprive the sentencing court of jurisdiction if more than a year elapses between conviction and sentencing.

 

You might also like
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
BECAUSE THE PLEA AGREEMENT COULD NO LONGER BE COMPLIED WITH DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA MUST BE VACATED; UNDER THE AGREEMENT DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCE ON A SEPARATE INDICTMENT, BUT THAT SEPARATE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED AFTER APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​
AS CHARGED IN THIS CASE, CRIMINAL TRESPASS THIRD IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY THIRD AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO INSTRUCTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRIMA FACIE TORT BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE THE SOLE MOTIVATION OF DEFENDANTS WAS DISINETERESTED MALEVOLENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Question of Fact About Whether Village Negligent in Maintaining Sewer System
MATTER SENT BACK FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NEW EVIDENCE TO THE SECOND GRAND JURY AFTER A ‘NO BILL,’ THE PEOPLE WERE GRANTED PERMISSION TO RE-PRESENT ON THE GROUND THAT NEW EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
2 ½ Inch Drop in Pavement Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Loss of Control of Her Vehicle
Defendants Accused of Crimes Not Listed in the Controlling Statutes Are Not Eligible for the Judicial Diversion Program—The Statutes Do Not Allow for Judicial Discretion

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY A CODEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO SHOW THE... THE POLICE OFFICER INJURED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND THE CITY SEEKING RECOVERY...