defendants from selectively abiding by court decisions; (5) discouraging escape; ... (6) encouraging voluntary sur render[;] ... (7) preserving respect for the criminal justice system; and (8) promoting the dignified operation of the appellate courts.” Additionally, Brown observed that “the chief justification for the [escape] rule is remedial in nature, i.e., to remedy the adverse effects that an escape has on Missouri’s criminal justice system.” 974 S.W.2d at 633[10]. Here, Defendant’s failure to appear at his March 5, 1999, sentencing caused a five-and one-half month delay in the case. Similar delays in sentencing, standing alone, have been held to adversely affect the criminal justice system and provide a sufficient basis for applying the escape rule. Troupe, 891 S.W.2d at 811 (<HOLDING>); State v. Jackson, 928 S.W.2d 894, 896
holding that a 13 month delay was unreasonable holding an eight month sentencing delay due to defendants escape necessarily affected the criminal justice system and warranted dismissal of appeal holding that a five month delay was unreasonable holding that an eight and onehalf month delay was enough to warrant further inquiry holding that a five month delay is unreasonable