People v. Blanco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Blanco

2016 NY Slip Op 6975, 143 A.D.3d 616, 39 N.Y.S.3d 760

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2016

Docket2034 4295/10 1051/11

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 6975 (People v. Blanco) 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. Blanco, 2016 NY Slip Op 6975, 143 A.D.3d 616, 39 N.Y.S.3d 760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered May 11, 2011, as amended May 31, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of assault in the second degree and attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Although it is undisputed that defendant was entitled to an express youthful offender (YO) determination at sentencing {see People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497 [2013]), defendant does not request a remand for that purpose, but instead asks this court to grant YO treatment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. However, we find that YO treatment would be inappropriate. As for the first conviction, defendant violated the conditions of his plea (see e.g. People v Stoudymire, 91 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 867 [2012]), and the second conviction involved the commission of a new felony while sentencing had been deferred on the prior felony. Moreover, both convictions were for violent felonies.

Concur— Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered May 11, 2011, as amended May 31, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of assault in the second degree and attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Although it is undisputed that defendant was entitled to an express youthful offender (YO) determination at sentencing {see People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497 [2013]), defendant does not request a remand for that purpose, but instead asks this court to grant YO treatment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. However, we find that YO treatment would be inappropriate. As for the first conviction, defendant violated the conditions of his plea (see e.g. People v Stoudymire, 91 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 867 [2012]), and the second conviction involved the commission of a new felony while sentencing had been deferred on the prior felony. Moreover, both convictions were for violent felonies.

Concur— Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 6975, 143 A.D.3d 616, 39 N.Y.S.3d 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blanco-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack