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 Juan had absconded after pleading guilty in 1996 to a drug offense and stayed on the lam until arrested after 15 years in July 2011 for drug possession in Kings County. While Juan Paulino did not appear at his original sentencing session in 1996 as he was running from the law, the sentencing was withheld and passed in August this year after his arrest. However, he moved the court for resentencing by application of reforms passed in 2004. The judge refused. Acting State Supreme Court Justice Richard Kohm held that the accused was not eligible for resentencing under the given circumstances. Kohm wrote The DLRA (Drug Law Reform Act, 2004), while ameliorative in nature, expressly states that its sentencing provisions are to have only prospective application. The court also denied requests of the accused under the DLRA for reducing sentences for class B felony offenders, as Paulinos offense was off a less serious nature and categorized only as class C. The accused had, in 1996, pleaded guilty to a class C felony that of attempting to sell a controlled substance in the third degree and the bargain was for a sentence between 3 to 6 years. But Paulinos absence at the

sentencing session and flight from law caused the court to issue a bench warrant for his arrest on Nov. 6, 1996. The Queens Court, on August 19, sentenced Paulino to the originally bargained for 3-6 years prison term, which Paulino challenged on March 13, citing the DLRA passed during his term as a fugitive. Paulinos attorney, Michael Horn told the media, The reform act was obviously meant to give a break to individuals who society determined were being sentenced too harshly Because Mr. Paulino seems to have fallen into a loophole, he is getting none of the benefits an all of the detriments of being sentenced late. But then what of those who had been sentenced under the old law because they did not abscond and kept their part of the plea bargain? If the new, less harsh law was applied on Paulino just because he absconded and wrongfully delayed sentencing, would not the application be discriminatory against those who had acted honestly, and suffered their sentencing under the old law? This is hardly a loophole but affirmation of the principle that you cannot gain advantage by your own wrong-doing.

PAGE 

www.lawcrossing.com