You are here: / / THE 2012 SENTENCE IMPOSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD...

THE 2012 SENTENCE IMPOSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WAS NOT ILLEGAL OR UNAUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW IN EFFECT AT THE TIME; THEREFORE A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE ON THAT GROUND IS NOT AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, determined the defendant’s motion to vacate his 2012 conviction because the sentencing court did not consider whether he should be afforded youthful offender status should not have been granted. At the time the law was changed to require consideration of youthful offender status the defendant’s case was not on appeal and the law-change was not made retroactive such that it could be considered in a collateral proceeding (motion to vacate):​

… [T]his appeal does not concern the legality of the sentence imposed after a determination had been made whether a defendant should or should not be accorded youthful offender status or, indeed, the legality of any aspect of defendant’s 2012 sentence. Rather, the appeal centers on the failure to determine, in 2012, whether defendant should have been given youthful offender status — a finding that ultimately goes to the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, … CPL 440.20 — a statute that empowers a court to set aside an unauthorized, illegal or invalid sentence — does not authorize the relief granted by Supreme Court … . …

… [I]n limiting the application of the new interpretation of CPL 720.20 (1) to “cases still on direct review,” the Court of Appeals expressly indicated that it was not available to permit “collateral attacks on sentences that have already become final” (People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d at 502). Thus, as a result of the Rudolph decision, convicted defendants gained the right to argue on direct appeal their entitlement to a resentencing at which the court will make a youthful offender determination. The Rudolph decision, however, did not authorize that relief in a collateral proceeding pursuant to CPL 440.20. In foreclosing retroactive application of the new rule announced in Rudolph to collateral proceedings, the Court of Appeals necessarily rejected the view that sentences imposed under its prior precedent were illegal, unauthorized or invalid. People v Vanderhorst, 2021 NY Slip Op 05141, Third Dept 9-30-21

 

You might also like
BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL APOLOGIZED TO COUNTY COURT AND INDICATED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S BEHAVIOR MAY HAVE CAUSED THE PEOPLE TO HAVE WITHDRAWN A MORE FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER, COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL AND SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REOFFER THE PRIOR PLEA DEAL (THIRD DEPT).
GARAGEKEEPER’S LIEN DECLARED NULL AND VOID UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S FATHER’S PRIOR ATTEMPT TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FAILED BECAUSE OF FLAWED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF, UPON TURNING 18, BECAUSE OF THE TOLLING STATUTE, MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, PLAINTIFF MADE A SHOWING THE SCHOOL SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY, AND THE SCHOOL’S SHOWING OF PREJUDICE WAS SPECULATIVE (THIRD DEPT).
THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT), ​
Substantial Evidence Supported Finding that Allowing a Child to Wander Away Near a Four-Lane Highway Constituted Maltreatment
DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR TWO CORRECTIONAL-STAFF WITNESSES WAS ERROR, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.
DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (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

THE PURCHASE OF A CHECK CASHING BUSINESS DID NOT TRANSFER THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE... CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT NURSING HOME SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND IN...