People v. Hargrove

2020 NY Slip Op 04767, 127 N.Y.S.3d 327, 186 A.D.3d 855
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 26, 2020
DocketInd. No. 5578/16
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 04767 (People v. Hargrove) 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. Hargrove, 2020 NY Slip Op 04767, 127 N.Y.S.3d 327, 186 A.D.3d 855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

People v Hargrove (2020 NY Slip Op 04767)
People v Hargrove
2020 NY Slip Op 04767
Decided on August 26, 2020
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on August 26, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

2018-14133
(Ind. No. 5578/16)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Tyjhe Hargrove, appellant.


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Hannah Kon of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan of counsel; Marielle Burnett on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin P. Murphy, J.), rendered June 18, 2018, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

"The determination of whether to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case" (People v McEachern, 163 AD3d 850, 851). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender treatment (see People v Cooper, 179 AD3d 832; People v McEachern, 163 AD3d at 851).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the period of postrelease supervision imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

AUSTIN, J.P., MALTESE, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Olivo
2021 NY Slip Op 04561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Shehi
2020 NY Slip Op 07107 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 04767, 127 N.Y.S.3d 327, 186 A.D.3d 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hargrove-nyappdiv-2020.