WGXC-90.7 FM
Cross says second sentencing was wrong
Feb 25, 2011 6:55 am
[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="200" caption="Former Hudson Alderman Quintin Cross, at the time of his arrest on a variety of counts in 2007, as seen in a Times Union Lance Wheeler photo from the time."]
[/caption]Andrew Amelinckx of the Register-Star has a story up about how Quintin Cross, the former Hudson alderman who spent more than two years in prison, may have been given an invalid sentence. The 27-year-old, currently on parole, was arrested in January 2007 by the New York State Police and charged with seven felonies and four misdemeanors including forgery, identity theft, grand larceny and falsifying business records for using credits cards in the names of then-Hudson Mayor Richard Tracy, Hudson Police Chief Ellis Richardson and the city of Hudson. He later pleaded guilty to one count of fourth-degree grand larceny through a plea deal offered by the District Attorney’s Office and was sentenced by Nichols to six months in jail, along with five years of probation, 1,500 hours of community service and restitution of more than $16,000. Cross violated probation in January 2008 by failing to make restitution payments and by missing a probation meeting. This first violation and its aftermath are at the heart of the question of whether Cross should have served prison time for a second violation of probation that occurred in May of that year. This continuation of Cross’ original sentence, according to the probation department’s and Howard’s reading of the law, was invalid because Cross had already served more time than was legally allowed by the state’s sentencing parameters. The maximum sentence allowed in connection with a five-year term of probation is six months. Based on this, Nichols wouldn’t have been able to later sentence Cross to 1 1⁄3 to 4 years in prison for his second probation violation (for cocaine use) since Cross wouldn’t have been on probation at that time. “The statute and law appear very clear to me,” said Howard. “Aside from the fact that I committed the crime, I expect justice to be done. I’m calling on the District Attorney to rectify the sentence expeditiously in the interest of justice.”
[/caption]Andrew Amelinckx of the Register-Star has a story up about how Quintin Cross, the former Hudson alderman who spent more than two years in prison, may have been given an invalid sentence. The 27-year-old, currently on parole, was arrested in January 2007 by the New York State Police and charged with seven felonies and four misdemeanors including forgery, identity theft, grand larceny and falsifying business records for using credits cards in the names of then-Hudson Mayor Richard Tracy, Hudson Police Chief Ellis Richardson and the city of Hudson. He later pleaded guilty to one count of fourth-degree grand larceny through a plea deal offered by the District Attorney’s Office and was sentenced by Nichols to six months in jail, along with five years of probation, 1,500 hours of community service and restitution of more than $16,000. Cross violated probation in January 2008 by failing to make restitution payments and by missing a probation meeting. This first violation and its aftermath are at the heart of the question of whether Cross should have served prison time for a second violation of probation that occurred in May of that year. This continuation of Cross’ original sentence, according to the probation department’s and Howard’s reading of the law, was invalid because Cross had already served more time than was legally allowed by the state’s sentencing parameters. The maximum sentence allowed in connection with a five-year term of probation is six months. Based on this, Nichols wouldn’t have been able to later sentence Cross to 1 1⁄3 to 4 years in prison for his second probation violation (for cocaine use) since Cross wouldn’t have been on probation at that time. “The statute and law appear very clear to me,” said Howard. “Aside from the fact that I committed the crime, I expect justice to be done. I’m calling on the District Attorney to rectify the sentence expeditiously in the interest of justice.”