You are here: / / SENTENCING COURT’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS REQUIRED...

SENTENCING COURT’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS REQUIRED VACATION OF SENTENCE.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court’s failure to consider whether defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender required vacation of the sentence, despite the fact defendant did not request youthful offender status:

In People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497, 499), the Court of Appeals held that compliance with CPL 720.20(1), which provides that the sentencing court “must” determine whether an eligible defendant is to be treated as a youthful offender, “cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request.” Compliance with CPL 720.20(1) requires the sentencing court to actually consider and make an independent determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment … . Here, the Supreme Court did not place on the record any reason for not adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender on his conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 9960/10, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it considered and made an actual determination as to whether the defendant should be granted youthful offender treatment for his conviction under that indictment … . Under these circumstances, we vacate the defendant’s sentence and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment. People v Worrell, 2015 NY Slip Op 09706, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS REQUIRED VACATION OF SENTENCE)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION REQUIRED VACATION OF SENTENCE)/SENTENCING (FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION REQUIRED VACATION OF SENTENCE)

You might also like
There Can Be More than One Proximate Cause of an Accident—Plaintiff, to Prevail On a Motion for Summary Judgment, Must Demonstrate Both Defendant’s Negligence as a Matter of Law and Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault
Question of Fact Re: Whether Dog Had Exhibited Vicious Propensities Prior to Plaintiff’s Injury Precluded Summary Judgment
ENTIRE JURY PANEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON AN INTERACTION BETWEEN ONE POTENTIAL JUROR AND DEFENDANT’S BROTHER, DNA EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH A WITNESS THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE TESTING (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S BUS, THE AUTHORITY GAINED TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL CLAIM WHEN IT INVESTIGATED THE ACCIDENT AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT).
HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY THE ONLY WITNESS TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT AS A PERPETRATOR INDICATED THE WITNESS WAS NOT IN FACT ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY OF THE PERPETRATORS; THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE THEY WENT TO A CORE ISSUE IN THE CASE IMPLICATING THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT RECEIVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED SIDEWALK DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Liability for Lead Paint Exposure Described
A DEFAULTING PARTY ADMITS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT; THEREFORE LIABILITY ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THE INQUEST (SECOND 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

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA REQUIRED... ONLY A CLOSE RELATIVE COULD SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER...