People v. Curry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Curry

138 A.D.3d 644, 28 N.Y.S.3d 872

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

DecidedApril 28, 2016

Docket995 1404/13

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 644 (People v. Curry) 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. Curry, 138 A.D.3d 644, 28 N.Y.S.3d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered October 22, 2013, convicting defendant of conspiracy in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 4 to 12 years and six years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The record does not support defendant’s contention that the court failed to consider youthful offender (YO) treatment. On the contrary, “the sentencing court did, indeed, consider defendant’s youthful offender status upon his request” (People v Pacherille, 25 NY3d 1021, 1023 [2015]). The court expressly stated that it had discretion to grant YO treatment but was denying it based on its individualized evaluation of the seriousness of defendant’s criminal conduct. Accordingly, the court properly conducted the determination required by People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]).

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341 [2015]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]), which forecloses his remaining claims. Regardless of whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence or granting youthful offender treatment as a matter of discretion.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered October 22, 2013, convicting defendant of conspiracy in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 4 to 12 years and six years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The record does not support defendant’s contention that the court failed to consider youthful offender (YO) treatment. On the contrary, “the sentencing court did, indeed, consider defendant’s youthful offender status upon his request” (People v Pacherille, 25 NY3d 1021, 1023 [2015]). The court expressly stated that it had discretion to grant YO treatment but was denying it based on its individualized evaluation of the seriousness of defendant’s criminal conduct. Accordingly, the court properly conducted the determination required by People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]).

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341 [2015]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]), which forecloses his remaining claims. Regardless of whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence or granting youthful offender treatment as a matter of discretion.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 644, 28 N.Y.S.3d 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-curry-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack