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
Notice of Increases in Water and Sewer Charges Was Sufficient If Not Ideal/Discrepancies in Water and Sewer Charges Did Not Violate Equal Protection Clause
PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.
Codefendant’s Statement Was Admissible—the Fact that the Statement Implicated the Defendant in the Light of Other Trial Evidence Did Not Violate Defendant’s Right of Confrontation
PLAINTIFF, AN EXPERIENCED MOTOCROSS RIDER, ASSUMED THE RISK OF LOSING CONTROL OF HIS BIKE UPON LANDING AFTER A JUMP; PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE THAT SOME ASPECT OF THE LANDING AREA CAUSED HIM TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE BIKE ON A PRIOR PRACTICE RUN BUT DID NOT INVESTIGATE (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Set Forth Manner and Timing of Restitution Required Remittance
BASED UPON EXECUTIVE LAW 63 AND TWO EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED BY GOVERNOR CUOMO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE AND CHARGE PERJURY ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY A DISTRICT ATTORNEY BEFORE A GRAND JURY CONVENED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE THE POLICE SHOOTING OF AN UNARMED CIVILIAN (THIRD DEPT).
THE AWARD OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS REQUIRED BY CPLR 5001; THE REQUEST FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED ON A FIVE-YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING SUIT (THIRD DEPT).
THE FINDINGS LEADING TO THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER WERE CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT ALLOW MEANINGFUL REVIEW; PETITIONER’S SUPERVISOR, WHO BROUGHT THE MISCONDUCT CHARGES, CHOSE THE HEARING OFFICER AND TESTIFIED AT THE HEARING, SHOULD RECUSE HERSELF FROM FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON REMITTAL (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...