People v. Alleyne

203 A.D.3d 732, 160 N.Y.S.3d 634, 2022 NY Slip Op 01305
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 2, 2022
DocketInd. No. 5222/09
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 A.D.3d 732 (People v. Alleyne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Alleyne, 203 A.D.3d 732, 160 N.Y.S.3d 634, 2022 NY Slip Op 01305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

People v Alleyne (2022 NY Slip Op 01305)
People v Alleyne
2022 NY Slip Op 01305
Decided on March 2, 2022
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on March 2, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.

2019-07972
(Ind. No. 5222/09)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

David Alleyne, appellant.


Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Nao Terai and Ava C. Page of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; Lawrance Choi on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Donald Leo, J.), imposed June 13, 2019, upon his conviction of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, after remittitur from this Court for resentencing (see People v Alleyne, 169 AD3d 710).

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

"The determination of whether to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case" (People v Hesterbey, 121 AD3d 1127, 1128 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Mullings, 83 AD3d 871, 872). Here, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court's determination denying youthful offender status to the defendant (see CPL 720.20[1]; People v Hesterbey, 121 AD3d at 1128; see also People v Beyjones, 186 AD3d 848, 849).

The resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

DUFFY, J.P., CHAMBERS, CHRISTOPHER and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Taylor
174 N.Y.S.3d 898 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 A.D.3d 732, 160 N.Y.S.3d 634, 2022 NY Slip Op 01305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-alleyne-nyappdiv-2022.