You are here: / / COUNTY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER...

COUNTY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitted the mater for a determination whether defendant is eligible for youthful offender status:

Because defendant was convicted of an armed felony offense … , he is ineligible to receive a youthful offender adjudication unless the court determines that one of two mitigating factors is present … . If the court, in its discretion, determines that neither of the mitigating factors is present and states the reason for its determination on the record, then no further determination on the youthful offender application is required … . If, however, the court determines that one or more of those mitigating factors are present, and that defendant is therefore an eligible youth, it must then determine whether defendant is a youthful offender … .

Here, the court did not follow the procedure set forth in Middlebrooks [25 NY3d 516], inasmuch as it made no on-the-record determination of defendant’s eligibility for a youthful offender adjudication at sentencing … . People v Reed, 2021 NY Slip Op 01590, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

You might also like
SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant’s Motion for DNA Testing Should Have Been Granted
THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT; THEREFORE REFERENCES TO A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN PLAINTIFFS’ BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE STRICKEN (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY HELD THAT DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY JUSTIFYING PURSUIT IN THIS STREET STOP SCENARIO; THE DISSENT ARGUED FLIGHT ALONE DURING A LEVEL TWO ENCOUNTER DOES NOT JUSTIFY PURSUIT (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Serve Complaint Upon Demand Required Dismissal of the Action
FALL FROM FIRST FLOOR TO BASEMENT FLOOR IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), THE UNGUARDED OPENING VIOLATED A PROVISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE.
BOTH THE GRAND JURY AND THE TRIAL JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE DEFENSE OF INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, INDICTMENT DISMISSED.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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

PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS PROPERLY MAILED TO MOTHER... FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S DETERMINATION...