People v. Minott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Minott

254 A.D.2d 306, 680 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10025

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 306 (People v. Minott) 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. Minott, 254 A.D.2d 306, 680 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), rendered May 8, 1997, which, upon vacating a judgment of the same court rendered February 5, 1996, imposing a sentence of five years probation as a youthful offender upon his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, imposed a sentence of an indeterminate term of imprisonment of three to nine years.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The circumstances of this case are accurately recited in the decision and order of the County Court revoking the defendant’s original probationary sentence as a youthful offender (see, People v Minott, 172 Misc 2d 916). Upon our review of the record we agree with the determination of the County Court that defense counsel, in the defendant’s presence, affirmatively and voluntarily misled the court as to the defendant’s innocence on other charges then pending in Kings County, to induce the County Court to impose a probationary sentence as a youthful offender upon the defendant’s conviction for manslaughter in the first degree. The defendant thereafter entered a plea of guilty in satisfaction of the Kings County indictment. Accordingly, the County Court had the inherent authority to revoke the youthful offender sentence as having been obtained by fraud and deceit (see, People v Calderon, 79 NY2d 61; Matter of Lockett v Juviler, 65 NY2d 182; People v Jason, 240 AD2d 760; People v Moss, 234 AD2d 610; Matter of Klein v Cowhey, 161 AD2d 643; People v Barnes, 160 AD2d 342; People v Joyner, 171 Misc 2d 544, affd 247 AD2d 945). Furthermore, the County Court did not improvidently exercise or abuse its discretion in resentencing the defendant to a period of incarceration of three to nine years on his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree (see, Penal Law §§ 125.20, 70.02 [3] [a]; [4]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), rendered May 8, 1997, which, upon vacating a judgment of the same court rendered February 5, 1996, imposing a sentence of five years probation as a youthful offender upon his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, imposed a sentence of an indeterminate term of imprisonment of three to nine years.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The circumstances of this case are accurately recited in the decision and order of the County Court revoking the defendant’s original probationary sentence as a youthful offender (see, People v Minott, 172 Misc 2d 916). Upon our review of the record we agree with the determination of the County Court that defense counsel, in the defendant’s presence, affirmatively and voluntarily misled the court as to the defendant’s innocence on other charges then pending in Kings County, to induce the County Court to impose a probationary sentence as a youthful offender upon the defendant’s conviction for manslaughter in the first degree. The defendant thereafter entered a plea of guilty in satisfaction of the Kings County indictment. Accordingly, the County Court had the inherent authority to revoke the youthful offender sentence as having been obtained by fraud and deceit (see, People v Calderon, 79 NY2d 61; Matter of Lockett v Juviler, 65 NY2d 182; People v Jason, 240 AD2d 760; People v Moss, 234 AD2d 610; Matter of Klein v Cowhey, 161 AD2d 643; People v Barnes, 160 AD2d 342; People v Joyner, 171 Misc 2d 544, affd 247 AD2d 945). Furthermore, the County Court did not improvidently exercise or abuse its discretion in resentencing the defendant to a period of incarceration of three to nine years on his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree (see, Penal Law §§ 125.20, 70.02 [3] [a]; [4]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 306, 680 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-minott-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack