People v. John W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. John W.

224 A.D.2d 856, 637 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1306

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 22, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered February 22, 1995, which sentenced defendant upon his adjudication as a youthful offender.

Defendant and two codefendants were charged with vandalizing numerous headstones in a Schenectady County cemetery. In satisfaction of the charges, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal mischief in the second degree. At sentencing, County Court replaced defendant’s guilty plea with a youthful offender adjudication and sentenced him to l1/s to 4 years in a State correctional facility. Defendant argues that the sentence is harsh and excessive in light of his age and background. We disagree. These factors were considered by County Court in adjudicating defendant a youthful offender. Given the nature of the crime and all of the other factors considered by County Court, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered February 22, 1995, which sentenced defendant upon his adjudication as a youthful offender.

Defendant and two codefendants were charged with vandalizing numerous headstones in a Schenectady County cemetery. In satisfaction of the charges, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal mischief in the second degree. At sentencing, County Court replaced defendant’s guilty plea with a youthful offender adjudication and sentenced him to l1/s to 4 years in a State correctional facility. Defendant argues that the sentence is harsh and excessive in light of his age and background. We disagree. These factors were considered by County Court in adjudicating defendant a youthful offender. Given the nature of the crime and all of the other factors considered by County Court, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

People v. John W., 224 A.D.2d 856, 637 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

224 A.D.2d 856 (People v. John W.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related