You are here: / / DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER HE SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL...
,

DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER HE SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE HIS WAIVER OF APPEAL; THE ISSUE HERE WAS RAISED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE APPEALS PROCESS BY A MOTION FOR A WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for resentencing, determined defendant was entitled to consideration of whether he should be afforded youthful offender status in spite of defendant’s waiver of appeal:

Defendant … moved for a writ of error coram nobis contending that Supreme Court neglected to consider whether he should be afforded youthful offender treatment in connection with his conviction of assault in the first degree and that appellate counsel, in turn, was ineffective for failing to raise this issue upon the direct appeals. This Court granted defendant’s motion to the extent of reinstating defendant’s appeals … and permitting defendant to brief the youthful offender issue … .

The People concede — and we agree — that remittal is warranted. People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]), which was decided before defendant was sentenced and the ensuing appellate process was completed, requires the sentencing court to make “a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” … . Notably, a defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal, regardless of its validity, does not foreclose review of the sentencing court’s failure to consider youthful offender status … . Where, as here, a defendant is convicted of an armed felony … , such defendant is not automatically precluded from obtaining youthful offender status; rather, “the court is [first] 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)” … . “If the court determines, in its discretion, that neither of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors exist and states the reasons for that determination on the record, no further determination by the court is required. If, however, the court determines that one or more of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors are present, and the defendant is therefore an eligible youth, the court then must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender”… . People v Jones, 2023 NY Slip Op 04689, Third Dept 9-21-23

Practice Point: Whether a defendant should be afforded youthful offender status can be raised on appeal, despite the waiver of appeal. Here the issue was raised after the appeals process was complete by a motion for a writ of coram nobis alleging appellate counsel was ineffective.

 

You might also like
THE STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT PLAINTIFF WERE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE; PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE STATEMENTS WERE MOTIVATED SOLELY BY MALICE; THE DEFAMATION ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED THE RULING OBJECTED TO IN HER APPLICATION FOR BOARD REVIEW; HER APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).
TESTIMONY OF DNA EXPERT, WHICH WAS BASED ON DATA COLLECTED BY NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES, DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION; ILLEGAL STOP DID NOT REQUIRE SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENT, SUFFICIENT ATTENUATION.
In Court of Claims Case, Inability to Prove State Was Served with Notice of Claim Required Dismissal
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE ATTACKERS’ INTENT TO ROB THE VICTIM; DEFENDANT’S ROBBERY CONVICTIONS UNDER AN ACCOMPLICE-LIABILITY THEORY REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Zoning Board’s Interpretation of Village Ordinances Upheld—Keeping of Chickens Is Not an Allowed “Residential Use”
CLAIMANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS SUPPORTED THE DENIAL OF CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR BOARD REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).
Surrogate’s Court Abused Its Discretion In Awarding Attorney’s Fees Greater than Those Called for by the Retainer Agreement—Evidence in Support of “Exceptional Circumstances” Justifying the Higher Fees Not Sufficient—Retainer Agreement Construed in Light Most Favorable to the Client

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE STRUCTURED ACQUISITION OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT CONSTITUTE... FATHER’S OBJECTIONS (EXCEPTIONS) TO THE IMMEDIATE RETURN OF HIS SON TO...