People v. Lawrence S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lawrence S.

33 A.D.2d 775, 307 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2749

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 775 (People v. Lawrence S.) 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. Lawrence S., 33 A.D.2d 775, 307 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered May 23,1969, adjudging appellant a youthful offender, after a non jury trial to which he had consented, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and a new trial, before a jury, granted. With respect to appellant’s prime claim of error, we hold that the statutory requirement of a defendant’s ’ consent to a trial without a jury in order for him to be eligible for youthful offender treatment ('Code Grim. Pro., § 913-g, subd. 3; '§ 913-h) is unconstitutional (People v. Michael A. C. [Anonymous], 32 A D 2d 554; People v. Jerome C. [Anonymous], 32 A D 2d 840). With respect to appellant’s additional claim of error, we hold that it is well settled that “adjudication as a youthful offender must rest upon a finding that the defendant committed the criminal acts charged against him in the indictment or information ” (People v. Sykes, 22 N Y 2d 159, 163-164; People v. McKinney, 24 N Y 2d 180, 183-184; Code Crim. Pro., § 913-j). Christ, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered May 23,1969, adjudging appellant a youthful offender, after a non jury trial to which he had consented, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and a new trial, before a jury, granted. With respect to appellant’s prime claim of error, we hold that the statutory requirement of a defendant’s ’ consent to a trial without a jury in order for him to be eligible for youthful offender treatment ('Code Grim. Pro., § 913-g, subd. 3; '§ 913-h) is unconstitutional (People v. Michael A. C. [Anonymous], 32 A D 2d 554; People v. Jerome C. [Anonymous], 32 A D 2d 840). With respect to appellant’s additional claim of error, we hold that it is well settled that “adjudication as a youthful offender must rest upon a finding that the defendant committed the criminal acts charged against him in the indictment or information ” (People v. Sykes, 22 N Y 2d 159, 163-164; People v. McKinney, 24 N Y 2d 180, 183-184; Code Crim. Pro., § 913-j). Christ, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 775, 307 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lawrence-s-nyappdiv-1969.