People v. Cuatle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cuatle

212 A.D.2d 625, 623 N.Y.S.2d 141

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 625 (People v. Cuatle) 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. Cuatle, 212 A.D.2d 625, 623 N.Y.S.2d 141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), both rendered October 6, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts; one as to each indictment), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly refused to treat the defendant as a youthful offender. The defendant stood convicted of an armed felony and presented no evidence of mitigating circumstances or that he was a "minor” participant in the crime. Therefore, he was not entitled to youthful offender treatment (see, CPL 720.10 [3]).

Additionally, the defendant received the bargained-for sentences and, therefore, has no cause to complain that the sentences imposed are excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), both rendered October 6, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts; one as to each indictment), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly refused to treat the defendant as a youthful offender. The defendant stood convicted of an armed felony and presented no evidence of mitigating circumstances or that he was a "minor” participant in the crime. Therefore, he was not entitled to youthful offender treatment (see, CPL 720.10 [3]).

Additionally, the defendant received the bargained-for sentences and, therefore, has no cause to complain that the sentences imposed are excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 625, 623 N.Y.S.2d 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cuatle-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack