People v. Keith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Keith

2016 NY Slip Op 7214, 144 A.D.3d 705, 39 N.Y.S.3d 808

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

DecidedNovember 2, 2016

Docket2015-01996

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7214 (People v. Keith) 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. Keith, 2016 NY Slip Op 7214, 144 A.D.3d 705, 39 N.Y.S.3d 808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered March 5, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for youthful offender status. Since the defendant was convicted of armed felony offenses (see CPL 1.20 [41] [b]; Penal Law §§ 70.02 [1] [a]; 160.15 [4]), he could only be adjudicated a youthful offender if there existed mitigating circumstances that bore directly upon the manner in which the crimes were committed, or if his participa *706 tion in the crimes was “relatively minor” (CPL 720.10 [3]). Here, there were insufficient mitigating circumstances that bore directly upon the manner in which the subject robberies were committed (see People v Garcia, 84 NY2d 336, 341 [1994]; People v Wright, 44 AD3d 692 [2007]; People v. Stokes, 28 AD3d 592 [2006]; People v O’Neill, 86 AD2d 213, 215 [1982]). Furthermore, the defendant’s role in the crimes was not minor (see People v Watts, 91 AD3d 678 [2012]; People v Henry, 76 AD3d 1031 [2010]; People v Joseph, 50 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2008]).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing proceeding. The defendant’s contention that his attorneys failed to make arguments in favor of youthful offender status or for a sentence less than the one actually imposed are belied by the record (see People v Philpot, 99 AD3d 1025 [2012]). In addition, the defendant received an advantageous plea and sentence, and the record does not cast doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565-566 [2000]; People v Erwin, 121 AD3d 710 [2014]; People v Philpot, 99 AD3d 1025 [2012]; People v Portillo, 95 AD3d 1361 [2012]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Dillon, J.P., Hall, Sgroi, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, 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 County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered March 5, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for youthful offender status. Since the defendant was convicted of armed felony offenses (see CPL 1.20 [41] [b]; Penal Law §§ 70.02 [1] [a]; 160.15 [4]), he could only be adjudicated a youthful offender if there existed mitigating circumstances that bore directly upon the manner in which the crimes were committed, or if his participa *706 tion in the crimes was “relatively minor” (CPL 720.10 [3]). Here, there were insufficient mitigating circumstances that bore directly upon the manner in which the subject robberies were committed (see People v Garcia, 84 NY2d 336, 341 [1994]; People v Wright, 44 AD3d 692 [2007]; People v. Stokes, 28 AD3d 592 [2006]; People v O’Neill, 86 AD2d 213, 215 [1982]). Furthermore, the defendant’s role in the crimes was not minor (see People v Watts, 91 AD3d 678 [2012]; People v Henry, 76 AD3d 1031 [2010]; People v Joseph, 50 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2008]).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing proceeding. The defendant’s contention that his attorneys failed to make arguments in favor of youthful offender status or for a sentence less than the one actually imposed are belied by the record (see People v Philpot, 99 AD3d 1025 [2012]). In addition, the defendant received an advantageous plea and sentence, and the record does not cast doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565-566 [2000]; People v Erwin, 121 AD3d 710 [2014]; People v Philpot, 99 AD3d 1025 [2012]; People v Portillo, 95 AD3d 1361 [2012]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Dillon, J.P., Hall, Sgroi, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7214, 144 A.D.3d 705, 39 N.Y.S.3d 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-keith-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack