People v. Malave

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Malave

179 A.D.2d 419, 578 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 148

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 179 A.D.2d 419 (People v. Malave) 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. Malave, 179 A.D.2d 419, 578 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

The decision to grant youthful offender treatment lies within the discretion of the sentencing court. (CPL 720.20 [1] [a].) In determining whether to grant an application for youthful offender status, "the factors to be considered include the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, [420]*420mitigating circumstances, defendant’s prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, defendant’s reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, defendant’s attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life” (People v Cruickshank, 105 AD2d 325, 334, affd sub nom. People v Dawn Maria C., 67 NY2d 625). Upon review of the record, we find the sentencing court’s denial of youthful offender treatment to have been appropriate, and we conclude that the interest of justice would not be served by relieving defendant of the "onus of a criminal record”. (CPL 720.20 [1] [a].)

The unpublished decision and order of this Court heretofore entered on November 14, 1991, is hereby recalled and vacated. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

The decision to grant youthful offender treatment lies within the discretion of the sentencing court. (CPL 720.20 [1] [a].) In determining whether to grant an application for youthful offender status, "the factors to be considered include the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, [420]*420mitigating circumstances, defendant’s prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, defendant’s reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, defendant’s attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life” (People v Cruickshank, 105 AD2d 325, 334, affd sub nom. People v Dawn Maria C., 67 NY2d 625). Upon review of the record, we find the sentencing court’s denial of youthful offender treatment to have been appropriate, and we conclude that the interest of justice would not be served by relieving defendant of the "onus of a criminal record”. (CPL 720.20 [1] [a].)

The unpublished decision and order of this Court heretofore entered on November 14, 1991, is hereby recalled and vacated. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 419, 578 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-malave-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack