People v. Keenan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Keenan

130 A.D.2d 592, 515 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46601

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

DecidedMay 11, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 130 A.D.2d 592 (People v. Keenan) 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. Keenan, 130 A.D.2d 592, 515 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered December 3, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the [593]*593first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from two concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years to two concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 3 to 9 years.

The court properly denied the defendant’s youthful offender application. Because the defendant stood convicted of robbery in the first degree, an armed felony offense (see, CPL 1.20 [41]), he could not be considered an “eligible youth” unless the court found either mitigating circumstances bearing directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed, or that the defendant was not the sole participant in the crime and his participation was relatively minor (see, CPL 720.10 [3]; People v McInnis, 125 AD2d 714). The court’s determination that none of the foregoing factors existed in this case is supported by the record, and we decline to disturb it.

However, the sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff, Hooper and Spatt, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered December 3, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the [593]*593first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from two concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years to two concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 3 to 9 years.

The court properly denied the defendant’s youthful offender application. Because the defendant stood convicted of robbery in the first degree, an armed felony offense (see, CPL 1.20 [41]), he could not be considered an “eligible youth” unless the court found either mitigating circumstances bearing directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed, or that the defendant was not the sole participant in the crime and his participation was relatively minor (see, CPL 720.10 [3]; People v McInnis, 125 AD2d 714). The court’s determination that none of the foregoing factors existed in this case is supported by the record, and we decline to disturb it.

However, the sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 592, 515 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-keenan-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack