You are here: / / ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER FOR ONE CHARGE DID NOT REQUIRE...

ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER FOR ONE CHARGE DID NOT REQUIRE A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION FOR AN UNRELATED CHARGE, EVEN THOUGH BOTH CHARGES WERE PART OF A JOINT PLEA AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the youthful offender adjudication for one charge did not require the court to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender for an unrelated charge, even though both charges were subject to a joint plea agreement:

Defendant’s primary contention is that County Court, having adjudicated him as a youthful offender on the unrelated charge, was also required to adjudicate him a youthful offender on the burglary charge. This is incorrect. Defendant relies upon CPL 720.20 (2), which provides, as relevant here, that, “[w]here an eligible youth is convicted of two or more crimes . . . set forth in two or more accusatory instruments consolidated for trial purposes, the court must not find [the youth] a youthful offender with respect to any such conviction . . . unless it finds him a youthful offender with respect to all such convictions” … . Contrary to defendant’s erroneous supposition, the accusatory instruments to which he pleaded guilty, i.e., the superior court informations charging him with burglary and the unrelated crime, were never “consolidated for trial purposes” so as to require a youthful offender adjudication on both or neither of the convictions (CPL 720.20 [2] …). Although both accusatory instruments were ultimately resolved under a joint agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to two separate superior court informations, and the record does not reflect that either party moved to consolidate them, that they were ordered joined for trial or, indeed, that they could have been properly joined (see CPL 200.20 [2], [4]; see also CPL 200.15). Consequently, “the sentencing court was authorized in its discretion to determine that the defendant was a youthful offender with respect to either or both convictions”… , and was not compelled to confer youthful offender status at sentencing on the burglary conviction. People v Turner, 2019 NY Slip Op 05718, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

You might also like
NOXIOUS ODORS FROM A LANDFILL DID NOT SUPPORT THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Teacher’s Refusing to Agree to One Year Extension of Probationary Period Did Not Constitute Disqualifying Misconduct
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).
PILOTS AND SKYDIVING INSTRUCTORS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE.
Respondents Must Demonstrate Why Request Not Specific Enough For Extraction from Electronic Documents/Claim that Documents Are Exempt from Disclosure Is Not Enough to Defeat the Request—Remedy Is In Camera Review
TRANSFERS MADE DURING 60-MONTH LOOK-BACK PERIOD WERE NOT MADE IN ANTICIPATION OF THE FUTURE NEED FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, DETERMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANNULLED.
EVEN IF PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SATISFY THE GOOD CAUSE STANDARD FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b (THIRD DEPT).
WHETHER A PRIVATE COLLEGE ACTED IRRATIONALLY OR ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY IN ELIMINATING FACULTY POSITIONS IN RESPONSE TO A BUDGET SHORTFALL IS PROPERLY DETERMINED IN AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; HERE THE COLLEGE FOLLOWED THE RELEVANT RULES IN THE COLLEGE MANUAL; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED THE COLLEGE ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY (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

FAMILY COURT WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A RESETTLED ORDER WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY... THE CLAIM DID NOT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE LOCATION OF CLAIMANT’S SLIP...