A woman worked as office manager for a period of thirteen months. Over that period, she stole several checks to her employer, endorsing and depositing them in her own bank account. The stolen checks were totaled in excess of $3,000. She was consequently arrested and eventually pleaded guilty to the court charging her with grand larceny in the third degree.
Subsequently, the court sentenced the criminal woman to a term of five years probation, and later transferred the probation supervision to the city, where she then lived and worked. The woman admitted that she stopped reporting to her probation officer and also ceased making required compensation payments. Afterward, the woman was arrested again for petit larceny.
Later, the Supreme Court filed a declaration of delinquency against the woman alleging that she had violated the terms and conditions of her probationary sentence. Consequently, a bench warrant for her arrest was issued that same day.
Based on records, the bench warrant had not yet been executed and again, the woman was arrested on additional larceny charges. She was then convicted of grand larceny in the third degree and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of from 3 to 6 years imprisonment.
Following her sentencing, the woman was transferred to a correctional facility and was continuously held there as an inmate. But, she was not presented in the Supreme Court to answer the delinquency matter.
Sources revealed that the woman did not challenge either the timeliness of the delinquency matter or the allegation that she had violated the terms and conditions of her probation. Instead, she argued that the court is lacked of jurisdiction to adjudicate her in violation of probation.
Then, the woman filed a formal motion to dismiss the matter on the ground of lack of authority.
The opposing party however opposed the motion, arguing that it had been attentive in producing the woman in court after it had located her in the facility. But, they offered no explanation for its failure to locate the woman earlier, or to have her present in the court to answer the delinquency matter while she was awaiting her sentence.
Nevertheless, the opposing party maintained that the woman’s motion to dismiss should be denied because any delay in producing her was reasonable and because she had suffered no demonstrable prejudice by reason of the delay. As a result, the Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that the delay in producing the woman was not unreasonable.
Thereafter, the woman admitted that she had violated the terms and conditions of her probationary sentence by having been convicted of grand larceny in the third degree while on probation. She also appeals from the amended decision.
Sources revealed that the woman’s principal claim on appeal is that the Supreme Court lost jurisdiction to decide her in violation of probation.
In addition, it is certain that the declaration of delinquency in the case was timely filed. Accordingly, the critical inquiry is whether the woman was thereafter promptly brought before the court to answer its accusations in compliance of the law.
Based on records, the opposing party has offered no rightful excuse for its failure to bring the woman promptly to answer her delinquency issue, and because the unexplained delay of approximately twenty months was considerable and is in no way attributable to the woman’s own conduct, the court hold that the balance weighs clearly in her favor and therefore the Supreme Court lost jurisdiction to decide her in violation of probation.
The court further stated that they need not to reach the woman’s remaining dispute. Consequently, the amended decision is reversed and the sentence imposed thereon is vacated.
There are instance that an individual tend engage in unlawful actions even if they are aware of the consequences. If you became a victim of a crime and you want to file an action, you can seek assistance from the Kings County Criminal Attorney. Further, you can also have the Kings County Grand Larceny Lawyer at Stephen Bilkis and Associates look into your legal dispute.