People v. Lloyd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lloyd

249 A.D.2d 623, 670 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3900

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

DecidedApril 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 623 (People v. Lloyd) 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. Lloyd, 249 A.D.2d 623, 670 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered June 13, 1997, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree, stemming from his participation in a robbery at a small grocery store in the City of Binghamton, Broome County, at a time when he was 16 years old. He was sentenced as an adult to a prison term of 3 to 6 years. Defendant appeals, contending that he was improperly denied youthful offender status and that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive. Given the serious nature of the crime, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s denial of youthful offender status (see, People v Luisi, 238 AD2d 811, lv denied 90 NY2d 941). Moreover, the record establishes that defendant was aware before pleading guilty that he would not be adjudicated a youthful offender as part of the plea agreement (see, People v Berezansky, 229 AD2d 768, 772, lv denied 89 NY2d 919; People v Paige, 132 AD2d 847). Furthermore, we reject defendant’s contention that the agreed-upon sentence was harsh or excessive.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, 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 Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered June 13, 1997, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree, stemming from his participation in a robbery at a small grocery store in the City of Binghamton, Broome County, at a time when he was 16 years old. He was sentenced as an adult to a prison term of 3 to 6 years. Defendant appeals, contending that he was improperly denied youthful offender status and that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive. Given the serious nature of the crime, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s denial of youthful offender status (see, People v Luisi, 238 AD2d 811, lv denied 90 NY2d 941). Moreover, the record establishes that defendant was aware before pleading guilty that he would not be adjudicated a youthful offender as part of the plea agreement (see, People v Berezansky, 229 AD2d 768, 772, lv denied 89 NY2d 919; People v Paige, 132 AD2d 847). Furthermore, we reject defendant’s contention that the agreed-upon sentence was harsh or excessive.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 623, 670 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lloyd-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack