People v. Dawn Maria C.

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Dawn Maria C.

490 N.E.2d 530, 67 N.Y.2d 625, 499 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16722

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by144 cases

This text of 490 N.E.2d 530 (People v. Dawn Maria C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Dawn Maria C., 490 N.E.2d 530, 67 N.Y.2d 625, 499 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16722 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Although no appeal lies from the Appellate Division order of reversal "as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice” to review the intermediate appellate court’s exercise of its discretion in declaring defendant a youthful offender (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]), an appeal does lie to consider the narrow issue concerning the legality of that court’s corrective action (CPL 450.90 [2] [b]; People v Mackell, 40 NY2d 59). We find no illegality in the Appellate Division’s remittal to County Court for sentencing. In so concluding we do not read the Appellate Division’s statement in its decision that County Court should "fix a reasonable definite term of incarceration along with a probationary period which includes the necessary counseling” (105 AD2d, at p 336) as in any way limiting the County Court’s discretion to impose a sentence authorized by statute (CPL 720.20 [3]; Penal Law § 60.02 [2]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur; Judge Hancock, Jr., taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Although no appeal lies from the Appellate Division order of reversal "as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice” to review the intermediate appellate court’s exercise of its discretion in declaring defendant a youthful offender (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]), an appeal does lie to consider the narrow issue concerning the legality of that court’s corrective action (CPL 450.90 [2] [b]; People v Mackell, 40 NY2d 59). We find no illegality in the Appellate Division’s remittal to County Court for sentencing. In so concluding we do not read the Appellate Division’s statement in its decision that County Court should "fix a reasonable definite term of incarceration along with a probationary period which includes the necessary counseling” (105 AD2d, at p 336) as in any way limiting the County Court’s discretion to impose a sentence authorized by statute (CPL 720.20 [3]; Penal Law § 60.02 [2]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur; Judge Hancock, Jr., taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 N.E.2d 530, 67 N.Y.2d 625, 499 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dawn-maria-c-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack