People v. Ternoois

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ternoois

2017 NY Slip Op 4745, 151 A.D.3d 1779, 53 N.Y.S.3d 868

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

DecidedJune 9, 2017

Docket868 KA 14-01833

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4745 (People v. Ternoois) 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. Ternoois, 2017 NY Slip Op 4745, 151 A.D.3d 1779, 53 N.Y.S.3d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*1780 Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Dennis M. Kehoe, J.), rendered September 23, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his request to adjudicate him a youthful offender. We reject that contention. “ The determination . . . whether to grant . . . 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 Dawson, 71 AD3d 1490, 1490 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 749 [2010]). Here, the record reflects that the court considered the relevant facts and circumstances in denying defendant’s request. Significantly, the record establishes that defendant twice violated the terms of interim probation that the court imposed between the time of the plea and sentencing (see People v Lewis, 128 AD3d 1400, 1401 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1203 [2015]; People v Kocher, 116 AD3d 1301, 1301-1303 [2014]). We therefore conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request.

Present — Garni, J.P., Curran, Troutman, Winslow and Scudder, JJ.

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

*1780 Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Dennis M. Kehoe, J.), rendered September 23, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his request to adjudicate him a youthful offender. We reject that contention. “ The determination . . . whether to grant . . . 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 Dawson, 71 AD3d 1490, 1490 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 749 [2010]). Here, the record reflects that the court considered the relevant facts and circumstances in denying defendant’s request. Significantly, the record establishes that defendant twice violated the terms of interim probation that the court imposed between the time of the plea and sentencing (see People v Lewis, 128 AD3d 1400, 1401 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1203 [2015]; People v Kocher, 116 AD3d 1301, 1301-1303 [2014]). We therefore conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request.

Present — Garni, J.P., Curran, Troutman, Winslow and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4745, 151 A.D.3d 1779, 53 N.Y.S.3d 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ternoois-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack