People v. Fryer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fryer

2 A.D.3d 874, 769 N.Y.S.2d 746, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14182

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

DecidedDecember 29, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 874 (People v. Fryer) 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. Fryer, 2 A.D.3d 874, 769 N.Y.S.2d 746, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), rendered March 14, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the court should have adjudicated him a youthful offender is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to object or move to withdraw his plea on this ground (see People v Noboa, 280 AD2d 558 [2001]; People v Brown, 265 AD2d 486 [1999]; People v Berry, 233 AD2d 336 [1996]).

[875]*875In any event, the determination to deny youthful offender treatment to the defendant was a provident exercise of discretion (see People v Taylor, 302 AD2d 480 [2003]; People v Wallace, 246 AD2d 676 [1998]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, 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, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), rendered March 14, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the court should have adjudicated him a youthful offender is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to object or move to withdraw his plea on this ground (see People v Noboa, 280 AD2d 558 [2001]; People v Brown, 265 AD2d 486 [1999]; People v Berry, 233 AD2d 336 [1996]).

[875]*875In any event, the determination to deny youthful offender treatment to the defendant was a provident exercise of discretion (see People v Taylor, 302 AD2d 480 [2003]; People v Wallace, 246 AD2d 676 [1998]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 874, 769 N.Y.S.2d 746, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fryer-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack