People v. Pagano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pagano

253 A.D.2d 500, 676 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8881

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

DecidedAugust 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 500 (People v. Pagano) 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. Pagano, 253 A.D.2d 500, 676 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), both rendered August 10, 1995, convicting him of attempted burglary in the first degree under Indictment No. 922/94 and burglary in the third degree under Indictment No. 2281/94, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that he should be resentenced because the court did not expressly make a determination on the record regarding his eligibility for youthful offender treatment before imposing sentences (see, CPL 720.20). However, since the defendant made no assertion at the time of the sentencing that he was entitled to be adjudicated a youthful offender, his right thereto was waived (see, People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905). Under the circumstances of this case, we find no basis for concluding that the sentences should be set aside. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur..

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

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), both rendered August 10, 1995, convicting him of attempted burglary in the first degree under Indictment No. 922/94 and burglary in the third degree under Indictment No. 2281/94, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that he should be resentenced because the court did not expressly make a determination on the record regarding his eligibility for youthful offender treatment before imposing sentences (see, CPL 720.20). However, since the defendant made no assertion at the time of the sentencing that he was entitled to be adjudicated a youthful offender, his right thereto was waived (see, People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905). Under the circumstances of this case, we find no basis for concluding that the sentences should be set aside. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 500, 676 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pagano-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack