You are here: / / THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE CORRECT PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING...

THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE CORRECT PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; EVEN WHERE THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED AN ARMED FELONY, WHICH CAN DISQUALIFY A DEFENDANT FROM THE STATUS, THE STATUTORY FACTORS WHICH WOULD NONETHELESS ALLOW YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS MUST BE CONSIDERED AND PLACED ON THE RECORD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court did not follow the correct procedure with respect to whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. Although the defendant pled guilty to an armed felony, which can render him ineligible for youthful offender status, the court was required to consider the factors which would render him eligible despite the armed felony and to do so on the record:

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that, “when a defendant has been convicted of an armed felony . . ., and the only barrier to his or her youthful offender eligibility is that conviction, the court is required to determine on the record whether the defendant is an eligible youth by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3). The court must make such a determination on the record ‘even where the defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request’ pursuant to a plea bargain”… . If the court determines that the offender is not an eligible youth, the inquiry is at an end; however, “if the court determines that the defendant is an eligible youth based on the presence of one or more of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors, . . . [t]he court [then] must exercise its discretion a second time to determine whether the eligible youth should be granted youthful offender treatment pursuant to CPL 720.20 (1)” … . …

The record before us does not conclusively establish that Supreme Court reached a determination, as required by CPL 720.10, regarding defendant’s eligibility for youthful offender treatment in the first instance. The court made no mention of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3) and, instead of first determining defendant’s eligibility for youthful offender treatment pursuant to that statute, appears to have moved to the second step and determined that youthful offender treatment was inappropriate under CPL 720.20. People v Colon, 2019 NY Slip Op 04498, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR LETTING PLAINTIFF USE A SCISSORS LIFT SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT NEGLIGENTLY ENTRUSTED THE LIFT TO HIM, KNOWING HE DID NOT KNOW HOW TO OPERATE IT; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE LIFT TIPPED OVER AND PLAINTIFF FELL 25 FEET (THIRD DEPT).
THE HOME-BUILDER’S CONTRACT WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, THE HOMEOWNERS’ BREACH OF CONTRACT COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND HOWEVER; CONTRACTOR ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN QUANTUM MERUIT IF, UPON REMITTAL, IT IS DETERMINED THE CONTRACTOR’S BREACH, IF ANY, WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL (THIRD DEPT).
Petitioner’s Knowledge the Child Was Not His When He Signed the Paternity Acknowledgment Precluded Vacation of the Acknowledgment
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED A GENETIC MARKER TEST WITHOUT A HEARING AND THE CHILD DID NOT RECEIVE ADEQUATE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).
ONE OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED IN A VIOLENT CONFRONTATION OUTSIDE A SCHOOL THREATENED TO RETURN THE NEXT DAY WITH A GUN; A TEACHER IMMEDIATELY HELD A MEETING WHERE CALLING IN SICK THE NEXT DAY WAS DISCUSSED; 23 TEACHERS CALLED IN SICK; THAT ACTION CONSTITUTED AN ILLEGAL STRIKE PURSUANT TO CIVIL SERVICE LAW 210 (THIRD DEPT). ​
INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE, NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR BODILY INJURY INTENDED OR EXPECTED BY THE INSURED; HERE THE INSURED UNINTENTIONALLY STRUCK COLE, WHO WAS ATTEMPTING TO BREAK UP A FIGHT BETWEEN THE INSURED AND A THIRD PERSON; BECAUSE THE INJURY TO COLE WAS UNINTENDED, THE INSURER WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND THE INSURED IN COLE’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE NOTICES INFORMED DEFENDANTS THAT THE MORTGAGE PAYMENTS ACCELERATED ON JANUARY 21, 2011; THE FACT THAT NOTICES REITERATING THAT SAME ACCELERATION DATE WERE SENT AS LATE AS NOVEMBER 2013 DID NOT CHANGE THE OPERATIVE DATE; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED IN MARCH 2017 WAS TIME-BARRED (THIRD 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

A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE CHARGING DOCUMENT AFTER... DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RISKS OF CONTINUING TO BE REPRESENTED...