People v. Harper
This text of 270 A.D.2d 431 (People v. Harper) 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.
Opinion
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered October 29, 1997, convicting her of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s challenge to certain portions of the prosecutor’s summation are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Cuffy, 265 AD2d 421; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818, 819) or without merit.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by admitting into evidence photographs depicting the victim’s injuries (see, People v Mastropietro, 232 AD2d 725).
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, “[m]ere eligibility for youthful offender status does not mandate youthful offender treatment, and the grant of such a benefit lies wholly within the discretion of the court” (People v Vera, 206 AD2d 494; see, People v Cuffy, supra; People v Barr, 168 AD2d 625; People v Williams, 124 AD2d 615). Here, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status (see, People v Cuffy, supra; People v Vera, supra; People v Rivas, 246 AD2d 488). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
270 A.D.2d 431, 705 N.Y.S.2d 268, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harper-nyappdiv-2000.