People v. Clarke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clarke

2016 NY Slip Op 7672, 144 A.D.3d 937, 40 N.Y.S.3d 790

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

DecidedNovember 16, 2016

Docket2015-02983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7672 (People v. Clarke) 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. Clarke, 2016 NY Slip Op 7672, 144 A.D.3d 937, 40 N.Y.S.3d 790 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Warhit, J.), rendered March 3, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Initially, the defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Fortier, 130 AD3d 642, 643 [2015]) and, in any event, does not bar his contention that the County Court failed to consider youthful offender treatment (see People v Dhillon, 143 AD3d 734 [2d Dept 2016]; People v Newman, 137 AD3d 1306, 1307 [2016]).

CPL 720.20 (1) requires “that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” (People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497, 501 [2013]; see People v Youmans, 140 AD3d 1097, 1097 [2016]). Here, however, the record reflects that the defendant previously had been adjudicated a youthful offender following two separate felony convictions, and had been convicted and sentenced for another felony. Accordingly, the defendant was not eligible to be considered for youthful offender treatment (see CPL 720.10 [2] [b], [c]; People v Raleigh, 121 AD3d 1412, 1413 [2014]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Eng, P.J., Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Warhit, J.), rendered March 3, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Initially, the defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Fortier, 130 AD3d 642, 643 [2015]) and, in any event, does not bar his contention that the County Court failed to consider youthful offender treatment (see People v Dhillon, 143 AD3d 734 [2d Dept 2016]; People v Newman, 137 AD3d 1306, 1307 [2016]).

CPL 720.20 (1) requires “that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” (People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497, 501 [2013]; see People v Youmans, 140 AD3d 1097, 1097 [2016]). Here, however, the record reflects that the defendant previously had been adjudicated a youthful offender following two separate felony convictions, and had been convicted and sentenced for another felony. Accordingly, the defendant was not eligible to be considered for youthful offender treatment (see CPL 720.10 [2] [b], [c]; People v Raleigh, 121 AD3d 1412, 1413 [2014]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Eng, P.J., Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7672, 144 A.D.3d 937, 40 N.Y.S.3d 790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clarke-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack