People v. Huffman

47 A.D.3d 646, 850 N.Y.S.2d 473
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 8, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 47 A.D.3d 646 (People v. Huffman) 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. Huffman, 47 A.D.3d 646, 850 N.Y.S.2d 473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Appeal by the defen dant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered August 9, 2005, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that she should have received youthful offender treatment is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object or to move to withdraw her plea on the issue of youthful offender treatment (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Small, 7 AD3d 819 [2004]; People v Fryer, 2 AD3d 874 [2003]; People v Moralez, 267 AD2d 334 [1999]; People v Corbin, 243 AD2d 575 [1997]).

In any event, although the defendant was eligible for youthful offender treatment, as she was 18 years old when she committed the offense, “eligibility alone does not mandate youthful offender treatment. The granting of such benefit lies wholly within the discretion of the court” (People v Polansky, 125 AD2d 342, 343 [1986]; see People v Williams, 78 AD2d 642 [1980]). In light of the fact that the defendant and her codefendant were found to be in possession of a significant amount of cocaine, as well as an assault rifle and ammunition that had been purchased by the defendant, and the otherwise favorable plea agreement, the sentencing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying her request for youthful offender treatment. Mastro, J.P, Santucci, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Joyner
2017 NY Slip Op 8690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Santana
2017 NY Slip Op 494 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Ramirez
131 A.D.3d 1269 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Williams
110 A.D.3d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Morrow
84 A.D.3d 1412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Lopez
82 A.D.3d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Peters
69 A.D.3d 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Walters
69 A.D.3d 768 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Billy
56 A.D.2d 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Hilaire
48 A.D.3d 834 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 A.D.3d 646, 850 N.Y.S.2d 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-huffman-nyappdiv-2008.