People v. Morse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Morse

2016 NY Slip Op 7221, 144 A.D.3d 710, 39 N.Y.S.3d 836

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

DecidedNovember 2, 2016

Docket2015-07825

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7221 (People v. Morse) 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. Morse, 2016 NY Slip Op 7221, 144 A.D.3d 710, 39 N.Y.S.3d 836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered June 23, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant, who argued at sentencing that he should be afforded youthful offender treatment, did not waive or fail to preserve for appellate review his argument that he should have been afforded such treatment (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v David S., 78 AD3d 1205 [2010]; People v Gomez, 60 AD3d 782, 783 [2009]; People v Murray, 57 AD3d 921 [2008]). However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender treatment (see CPL 720.20 [1]; People v Bae, 137 AD3d 804 [2016]; People v Jones, 118 AD3d 912, 914 [2014]).

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

Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered June 23, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant, who argued at sentencing that he should be afforded youthful offender treatment, did not waive or fail to preserve for appellate review his argument that he should have been afforded such treatment (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v David S., 78 AD3d 1205 [2010]; People v Gomez, 60 AD3d 782, 783 [2009]; People v Murray, 57 AD3d 921 [2008]). However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender treatment (see CPL 720.20 [1]; People v Bae, 137 AD3d 804 [2016]; People v Jones, 118 AD3d 912, 914 [2014]).

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

Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7221, 144 A.D.3d 710, 39 N.Y.S.3d 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morse-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack