People v. Minaya

2018 NY Slip Op 5869
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 22, 2018
Docket2017-05367
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 5869 (People v. Minaya) 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. Minaya, 2018 NY Slip Op 5869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

People v Minaya (2018 NY Slip Op 05869)
People v Minaya
2018 NY Slip Op 05869
Decided on August 22, 2018
Appellate Division, Second 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 on August 22, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
BETSY BARROS, JJ.

2017-05367
2017-05369

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

v

Raymond Minaya, appellant. (Ind. Nos. 8015/13, 8397/13)


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Lynn W. L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner of counsel; Masha Simonova on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from two resentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin P. Murphy, J.), both imposed May 3, 2017, after remittitur from this Court for resentencing (see People v Minaya, 147 AD3d 978), upon his convictions of robbery in the third degree under Indictment No. 8015/13, and attempted murder in the second degree under Indictment No. 8397/13, upon his pleas of guilty.

ORDERED that the resentences are affirmed.

"The determination of whether to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case" (People v Hesterbey, 121 AD3d 1127, 1128 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Dhillon, 157 AD3d 900, 900-901; People v Mullings, 83 AD3d 871, 872). Here, weighing all of the relevant circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender treatment (see CPL 720.20[1]; People v Dawkins, 146 AD3d 898, 899; People v Green, 110 AD3d 825, 826).

LEVENTHAL, J.P., AUSTIN, DUFFY and BARROS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Hesterbey
121 A.D.3d 1127 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Dawkins
2017 NY Slip Op 317 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Minaya
2017 NY Slip Op 1233 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Mullings
83 A.D.3d 871 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Green
110 A.D.3d 825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 5869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-minaya-nyappdiv-2018.