You are here: / / DEFFENDANT, WHO WAS 14 AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED...

DEFFENDANT, WHO WAS 14 AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant, who had just turned 14 at the time of the robbery, should have been adjudicated a youthful offender. The defendant had been placed in a program called “Project Redirect” which, had he successfully completed it, would have resulted in dismissal of the felony. Defendant, however, did not successfully complete the program:

“The youthful offender provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law emanate from a legislative desire not to stigmatize youths . . . with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts which, although crimes, may not have been the serious deeds of hardened criminals” … . Here, the evidence before the court showed that the defendant participated with a group of other youths in a single robbery at an age when he was barely capable of being held criminally responsible for his conduct (see Penal Law § 30.00). Although the defendant did not fully comply with the requirements of the “Project Redirect” program, there is no indication in the record that he is incapable of rehabilitation. Indeed, no further criminal conduct was alleged during that time. Under these circumstances, in view of the defendant’s tender years, background, and lack of juvenile or criminal record, the interest of justice would be served by relieving the defendant from the onus of a criminal record … . People v Darius B., 2016 NY Slip Op 08371, 2nd Dept 12-14-16

CRIMINAL LAWDEFFENDANT, WHO WAS 14 AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DEFFENDANT, WHO WAS 14 AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER)

 

You might also like
Vicious Propensities Not Demonstrated, Summary Judgment Properly Awarded to Defendants
DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS FOUND AT THE BOTTOM OF STAIRS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS UNKNOWN; IN ADDITION, THE NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE FLORIDA CHILD SUPPORT ORDER, EVEN THOUGH FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION HAD TERMINATED BY THE TERMS OF THE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA AND WHETHER THAT FAILURE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FEDERAL STANDARD, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT RECORD TO HAVE RAISED THAT ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISION OF THE MORTGAGE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE REQUIRED DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT REGARD TO OPPOSING PAPERS.
HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED SUCH THAT THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WOULD BE DEEMED VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED MALPRACTICE BY A CORPORATION OWNED BY A HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE AND WHOSE OFFICE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL (SECOND 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

INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASIDE. DRIVER STRUCK AS HE WAS ABOUT TO ENTER HIS PARKED CAR WAS NOT AN OCCUPANT OF...