You are here: / / SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TO CONSECUTIVE TERMS EXCEEDING FOUR YEARS...

SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TO CONSECUTIVE TERMS EXCEEDING FOUR YEARS WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT.

The First Department determined that sentencing a youthful offender to consecutive sentences which exceeded four years was inconsistent with the underlying concept of youthful offender treatment:

 

By adjudicating defendant a youthful offender and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 4 years, to run consecutively to a sentence of one to three years on another YO adjudication, the court effectively imposed an aggregate term in excess of four years for two YO adjudications. The imposition of consecutive terms with an aggregate term of more than the normal YO maximum of four years “is inconsistent with the underlying concept of youthful offender treatment and it is unrealistic to conclude that one eligible for such treatment requires prolonged confinement to achieve the objectives of the legislation” … . People v Christopher P., 2016 NY Slip Op 00904, 1st Dept 2-9-11

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TO MORE THAN FOUR YEARS INCONSISTENT WITH PURPOSE OF YOUTHUL OFFENDER TREATMENT)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TO MORE THAN FOUR YEARS INCONSISTENT WITH PURPOSE OF YOUTHUL OFFENDER TREATMENT)/SENTENCING (SENTENCING YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TO MORE THAN FOUR YEARS INCONSISTENT WITH PURPOSE OF YOUTHUL OFFENDER TREATMENT)

You might also like
THE PEOPLE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING BUT ARGUED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BECAUSE THE ORDER DENYING A SUPPRESSION HEARING INCLUDED THE PHRASE “WITH LEAVE TO RENEW UPON A SHOWING OF SUFFICIENT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS” RENDERING THE ORDER NONFINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT NO OTHER EVIDENCE CAME TO LIGHT WHICH COULD HAVE SUPPORTED A RENEWAL MOTION; THE ORDER WAS THEREFORE DEEMED FINAL AND APPEALABLE (FIRST DEPT).
Lineup Was Unduly Suggestive, Court Suggested Everyone In the Lineup Should Have Been Given an Eye Patch Because the Complainant Described the Perpetrator as Having a “Deformed Eye”
City Was “United in Interest” with Non-Profit Corporation Which Maintained Central Park Pursuant to a Contract with the City—Therefore Plaintiff, Who Was Allegedly Injured by a Truck Owned by the Non-Profit Corporation, Could Amend His Complaint to Include the Non-Profit Corporation After the Statute of Limitations Had Run—However the Extent to Which the City Was “United in Interest” Was Dictated by the Terms of the Contract
BAR AT ENTRANCE TO A SHOPPING-CART CORRAL WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT.
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY AN AIR CONDITIONER WHEN TWO OF THE FOUR RODS ATTACHING THE AIR CONDITIONER TO THE CEILING DETACHED AND ONE END OF THE UNIT FELL; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS A FALLING OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR “BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD” BY PRESENTING SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE LEGALITY OF POLICE CONDUCT AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED DEFENDANT WERE MADE AWARE OF THE CO-DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ARREST; THE FACT THAT GAPS IN THE PEOPLE’S PROOF MAY HAVE BEEN FILLED IN BY THE DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING DIDN’T CURE THE DEFICIENCY (FIRST DEPT).
TITLE TO ARTWORK PURCHASED DURING THE MARRIAGE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO INVOICES ALONE.
THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PARTICIPATION IN THE SHOOTING WAS DNA ON A HANDGUN; THE EVIDENCE OF MURDER AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

APPEAL OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENJOIN CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS... PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE...