People v. Biscain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Biscain

93 A.D.3d 481, 939 N.Y.S.2d 850

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 13, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 93 A.D.3d 481 (People v. Biscain) 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. Biscain, 93 A.D.3d 481, 939 N.Y.S.2d 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, [482]*482Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered August 12, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant youthful offender treatment (see People v Drayton, 39 NY2d 580 [1976]). Since defendant was convicted of an armed felony, youthful offender treatment would require a showing of mitigating circumstances or relatively minor participation in the crime (CPL 720.10 [2] [a] [ii];[3]), and we do not find that those criteria applied to the facts of this case. In any event, regardless of defendant’s eligibility, youthful offender treatment was not warranted.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court considered inappropriate factors in denying youthful offender treatment, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Judgment, [482]*482Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered August 12, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant youthful offender treatment (see People v Drayton, 39 NY2d 580 [1976]). Since defendant was convicted of an armed felony, youthful offender treatment would require a showing of mitigating circumstances or relatively minor participation in the crime (CPL 720.10 [2] [a] [ii];[3]), and we do not find that those criteria applied to the facts of this case. In any event, regardless of defendant’s eligibility, youthful offender treatment was not warranted.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court considered inappropriate factors in denying youthful offender treatment, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.3d 481, 939 N.Y.S.2d 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-biscain-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack