People v. Lugo

166 N.Y.S.3d 523, 205 A.D.3d 524, 2022 NY Slip Op 03213
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 17, 2022
DocketInd. No. 899/18 Appeal No. 15942 Case No. 2021-03395
StatusPublished

This text of 166 N.Y.S.3d 523 (People v. Lugo) 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. Lugo, 166 N.Y.S.3d 523, 205 A.D.3d 524, 2022 NY Slip Op 03213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

People v Lugo (2022 NY Slip Op 03213)
People v Lugo
2022 NY Slip Op 03213
Decided on May 17, 2022
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: May 17, 2022
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Oing, Moulton, González, Kennedy, JJ.

Ind. No. 899/18 Appeal No. 15942 Case No. 2021-03395

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Antonio Lugo, Defendant-Appellant.


Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Anjali Pathmanathan of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Amanda Katherine Regan of counsel), for respondent.



Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen N. Biben, J.), rendered September 13, 2021, resentencing defendant to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying youthful offender treatment. Because defendant was convicted of one of the sex crimes enumerated in CPL 720.10(2)(a)(iii), he was not eligible for such treatment in the absence of mitigating circumstances that "bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed" (CPL 720.10[3]). The record does not establish any mitigating circumstances of the type contemplated by the statute, and, given the circumstances of the crime, youthful offender treatment was not warranted in any event.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

 THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: May 17, 2022



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

Related

§ 431
New York JUD § 431

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 N.Y.S.3d 523, 205 A.D.3d 524, 2022 NY Slip Op 03213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lugo-nyappdiv-2022.