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
LIABILITY UNDER CONTRACT CAN ARISE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRIVITY WHERE A PARTY IS A JOINT VENTURER OR PARTNER WITH A SIGNATORY TO THE CONTRACT.
Retroactive Suspension of Child Support Payments Based On Interference With Payor’s Parental Rights Proper
Psychological Injury Stemming from Witnessing the Aftermath of a Suicide Deemed Compensable
Defendant’s Verbal Abuse of His Lawyer Did Not Constitute a Waiver of His Right to Counsel—Criteria for Valid Waiver Explained
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOTEL DEFENDANTS WERE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF A SNOWMOBILE TOUR GUIDE UNDER AN APPARENT AGENCY THEORY.
THE ADMISSION ALLOCUTION IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE JUDGE QUESTION THE JUVENILE AND A PARENT, FELL SHORT OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS IN THE FAMILY COURT ACT; PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY.
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA; AND DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE DECIDED AGAINST PLEADING GUILTY HAD HE BEEN GIVEN ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE RISK OF DEPORTATION (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...