People v. Fowler-Graham

92 A.D.3d 1225, 937 N.Y.2d 906
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 10, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 1225 (People v. Fowler-Graham) 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. Fowler-Graham, 92 A.D.3d 1225, 937 N.Y.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

[1226]*1226Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]). Defendant waived his present contention that Supreme Court erred in failing to set forth on the record at sentencing the reasons for its statement that “[yjouthful offender status is denied” inasmuch as defendant did not contend at the time of sentencing that he was entitled to a youthful offender adjudication (see People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905, 906 [1977], rearg denied 42 NY2d 1015 [1977]; People v Crawford, 85 AD3d 1620, 1620-1621 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 858 [2011]; see generally CPL 720.20 [1]). In addition, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court’s failure to adjudicate him a youthful offender constitutes an abuse of discretion “inasmuch as he failed to seek that status either at the time of the plea proceedings or at sentencing” (People v Fowler, 28 AD3d 1183, 1184 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 788 [2006]; see People v Wright, 81 AD3d 1394 [2011]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We also decline to grant defendant’s request to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to afford him such status (see People v Jock, 68 AD3d 1816 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 801 [2010]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Peradotto, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.

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

Related

MORROW, TEVIN, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
People v. Morrow
115 A.D.3d 1241 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 A.D.3d 1225, 937 N.Y.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fowler-graham-nyappdiv-2012.