People v. Mackson

2017 NY Slip Op 7145, 154 A.D.3d 780, 61 N.Y.S.3d 508
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 11, 2017
Docket2015-10246
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7145 (People v. Mackson) 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. Mackson, 2017 NY Slip Op 7145, 154 A.D.3d 780, 61 N.Y.S.3d 508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered October 7, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims his plea of guilty was involuntary because he pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would be afforded youthful offender treatment, and thereafter was denied youthful offender treatment. Since the defendant did not object to the denial of youthful offender treatment, or move for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty, his claim that he pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would be afforded youthful offender treatment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Cameron, 107 AD3d 733 [2013]; People v Symons, 262 AD2d 872 [1999]).

In any event, the plea minutes indicate that no such promise was made. Moreover, the defendant was convicted of an armed felony (see CPL 1.20 [41]). Therefore, he was only eligible for youthful offender treatment if there were “mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed” or where the defendant’s participation in the crime was “relatively minor” (CPL 720.10 [3]; see People v Keith, 144 AD3d 705 [2016]). The County Court properly concluded that the circumstances did not satisfy those criteria.

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

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Chambers, J.P, Miller, Hinds-Radix and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Frazier
211 A.D.3d 1033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Allen
2022 NY Slip Op 03525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Cherry
2019 NY Slip Op 8687 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Sanford
2019 NY Slip Op 4731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Rosado
2019 NY Slip Op 4422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 7145, 154 A.D.3d 780, 61 N.Y.S.3d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mackson-nyappdiv-2017.