You are here: / / Defendant Should Have Been Adjudicated a Youthful Offender; Waiver of Appeal...
,

Defendant Should Have Been Adjudicated a Youthful Offender; Waiver of Appeal Not Valid

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and County Court should have adjudicated the defendant a youthful offender (re: criminal possession of a weapon):

…[T]he waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice”… .

A defendant between the ages of 16 and 19 who, like defendant herein, “has been convicted of an armed felony offense . . . is an eligible youth if the court determines that . . . [there are] mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed” (CPL 720.10 [3] [i]), and we conclude that such is the case here. The record reflects that defendant was the victim of a brutal attack by multiple perpetrators the day prior to the armed felony offense at issue herein. … Defendant told the police that he had fired a single shot into the porch of his attackers’ house “to send a message to them to stop messing with him as he was a serious threat if need be.” According to defendant, he knew that his attackers would not be home and, indeed, the record reflects that the residence was unoccupied at the time of the shooting.  People v Amir W, 759, 4th Dept 6-28-13

 

You might also like
JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MADE AN INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF JUROR BIAS BASED UPON AN OBSERVATION DURING A RECESS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
ADVANCES IN MEDICINE AND SCIENCE CALL INTO QUESTION PREVIOUS OPINIONS ABOUT SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION GRANTED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
“Employer” of Independent Contractor Not Liable for Contractor’s Alleged Negligence
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).
FLIGHT ALONE DID NOT JUSTIFY THE PURSUIT AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT IN A STREET STOP (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE IN THIS BENCH TRIAL DID NOT EXPLICITLY RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPLICIT IN THE VERDICT AND THEREFORE THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY COURT ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED THREE INDICTMENT COUNTS AFTER IMPROPERLY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE SET A SPECIFIC AND DEFINITIVE VISITATION SCHEDULE, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ABOUT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE... Statute of Limitations for Article 78 “Mandamus to Compel;” Doctrine...