People v. Pinheiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pinheiro

44 A.D.3d 798, 842 N.Y.S.2d 736

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

DecidedOctober 9, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 A.D.3d 798 (People v. Pinheiro) 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. Pinheiro, 44 A.D.3d 798, 842 N.Y.S.2d 736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J.), rendered April 20, 2004, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the sentencing court should have adjudicated him a youthful offender is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to object or move to withdraw his plea on that ground (see People v Thompson, 16 AD3d 603 [2005]; People v Greene, 13 AD3d 647 [2004]; People v Small, 7 AD3d 819 [2004]). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, the denial of youthful offender treatment was a provident [799]*799exercise of discretion. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Dickerson, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J.), rendered April 20, 2004, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the sentencing court should have adjudicated him a youthful offender is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to object or move to withdraw his plea on that ground (see People v Thompson, 16 AD3d 603 [2005]; People v Greene, 13 AD3d 647 [2004]; People v Small, 7 AD3d 819 [2004]). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, the denial of youthful offender treatment was a provident [799]*799exercise of discretion. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 798, 842 N.Y.S.2d 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pinheiro-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack