People v. Maier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maier

102 A.D.2d 804, 477 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18964

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

DecidedJune 28, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 A.D.2d 804 (People v. Maier) 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. Maier, 102 A.D.2d 804, 477 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nardelli, J.), rendered on July 27, 1982, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing her to an indeterminate term of 2% to 8 years, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, the conviction vacated, and in lieu thereof defendant adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced to time served. H Defendant was 14 years old at the time of the crime and had no prior criminal activity. 11 It is well settled that “we can substitute our own discretion for that of a trial court which has not abused its discretion in the imposition of a sentence.” (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86.) Therefore, although the Supreme Court imposed a sentence which was justified on the record before it, we have decided, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to grant defendant’s motion for youthful offender treatment and sentence defendant accordingly. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch and Alexander, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nardelli, J.), rendered on July 27, 1982, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing her to an indeterminate term of 2% to 8 years, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, the conviction vacated, and in lieu thereof defendant adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced to time served. H Defendant was 14 years old at the time of the crime and had no prior criminal activity. 11 It is well settled that “we can substitute our own discretion for that of a trial court which has not abused its discretion in the imposition of a sentence.” (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86.) Therefore, although the Supreme Court imposed a sentence which was justified on the record before it, we have decided, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to grant defendant’s motion for youthful offender treatment and sentence defendant accordingly. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch and Alexander, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.2d 804, 477 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maier-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack