THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF LEGAL JOBS ON EARTH
LawCrossing Legal Daily News Feature
Absconders Cannot Claim Refuge of Legal Reform Passed During their Flight Last week, in a recent reaffirmation of the principle that you cannot take advantage of your own wrongdoing, a Queens judge ruled against an absconder in the case of People v. Juan Paulino, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County, No. 10363/96.
04/02/12
sentencing session and flight from law caused the court to issue a bench warrant for his arrest on Nov. 6, 1996.
Juan had absconded after pleading guilty in 1996 to a drug offense and stayed on the lam until arrested
The Queens Court, on August 19, sentenced Paulino
after 15 years in July 2011 for drug possession in
to the originally bargained for 3-6 years prison term,
Kings County. While Juan Paulino did not appear at his
which Paulino challenged on March 13, citing the DLRA
original sentencing session in 1996 as he was running
passed during his term as a fugitive.
from the law, the sentencing was withheld and passed in August this year after his arrest. However, he moved
Paulino’s attorney, Michael Horn told the media,
the court for resentencing by application of reforms
“The reform act was obviously meant to give a break
passed in 2004. The judge refused.
to individuals who society determined were being sentenced too harshly … Because Mr. Paulino seems to
Acting State Supreme Court Justice Richard Kohm
have fallen into a loophole, he is getting none of the
held that the accused was not eligible for resentencing
benefits an all of the detriments of being sentenced
under the given circumstances. Kohm wrote “The DLRA
late.”
(Drug Law Reform Act, 2004), while ameliorative in nature, expressly states that its sentencing provisions
But then what of those who had been sentenced under
are to have only prospective application.”
the old law because they did not abscond and kept their part of the plea bargain? If the new, less harsh
The court also denied requests of the accused under
law was applied on Paulino just because he absconded
the DLRA for reducing sentences for class B felony
and wrongfully delayed sentencing, would not the
offenders, as Paulino’s offense was off a less serious
application be discriminatory against those who had
nature and categorized only as class C.
acted honestly, and suffered their sentencing under the old law?
The accused had, in 1996, pleaded guilty to a class C felony that of attempting to sell a controlled substance
This is hardly a ‘loophole’ but affirmation of the
in the third degree and the bargain was for a sentence
principle that you cannot gain advantage by your own
between 3 to 6 years. But Paulino’s absence at the
wrong-doing.
PAGE
www.lawcrossing.com