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
THE PROOF OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR LOST EARNINGS WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NO-FAULT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.
BOTH THE HIPAA PRIVACY RULE AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW APPLY TO THE FOIL REQUEST FOR RECORDS DOCUMENTING INJURIES SUFFERED BY ATHLETES USING THE OLYMPIC TRAINING FACILITIES IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK; THE HIPAA DEIDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE REQUESTED RECORDS (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE ROAD LEADING TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY WAS PROPERLY CERTIFIED “ABANDONED” SUCH THAT THE MUNICIPALITY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS MAINTENANCE; AND PETITIONER STATED AN EQUAL-PROTECTION CLAIM UNDER 42 USC 1983 (THIRD DEPT).
30-Day Time-Limit for Bringing Article 78 Proceeding Pursuant to Public Health Law Runs from Date of Determination, Not Date of Written Notice of Determination
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RAYMOND F AND THE CHILD; THEREFORE RAYMOND F’S REQUEST FOR A GENETIC MARKER TEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
DISNEY WAS DEDUCTING ROYALTY PAYMENTS MADE BY AFFILIATES WHICH DID NOT PAY NEW YORK TAXES; THE TAX LAW WAS DESIGNED TO PLUG THAT “LOOPHOLE” AND THE DEDUCTIONS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED FATHER’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PETITION WITHOUT HOLDING A BEST INTERESTS HEARING, SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION AS TRUE, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON UNSWORN INFORMATION FROM THE ATTORNEYS (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...