People v. Braswell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Braswell

2017 NY Slip Op 3050, 149 A.D.3d 580, 50 N.Y.S.3d 279

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

DecidedApril 20, 2017

Docket3598 2894/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3050 (People v. Braswell) 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. Braswell, 2017 NY Slip Op 3050, 149 A.D.3d 580, 50 N.Y.S.3d 279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered April 28, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his argument that the court failed to follow the proper procedures in denying his request for youthful offender treatment (see People v Samms, 95 NY2d 52, 57 [2000]), and we decline to review these claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find them unavailing.

After making the type of inquiry required by People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]), the court properly exercised its discretion in denying YO treatment, in light of the seriousness of the offense.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered April 28, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his argument that the court failed to follow the proper procedures in denying his request for youthful offender treatment (see People v Samms, 95 NY2d 52, 57 [2000]), and we decline to review these claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find them unavailing.

After making the type of inquiry required by People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]), the court properly exercised its discretion in denying YO treatment, in light of the seriousness of the offense.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3050, 149 A.D.3d 580, 50 N.Y.S.3d 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-braswell-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack