People v. Walsh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Walsh

106 A.D.2d 419, 482 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21456

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 106 A.D.2d 419 (People v. Walsh) 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. Walsh, 106 A.D.2d 419, 482 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.) rendered January 4, 1982, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The hearing court’s finding that defendant made a statement to the police voluntarily, and knowingly waived his rights, is amply supported by the record. Therefore, suppression of the statement was properly denied (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759). [420]*420Defendant’s contention that he should have been granted youthful offender status is without merit. The grant of that relief lies within the discretion of the court (People v Williams, 78 AD2d 642). Defendant received the benefit of the plea bargain and received the sentence promised. Considering the seriousness of the crime and the relatively short sentence imposed, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny defendant the additional benefit of youthful offender treatment. Thompson, J. P., O’Connor, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.) rendered January 4, 1982, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The hearing court’s finding that defendant made a statement to the police voluntarily, and knowingly waived his rights, is amply supported by the record. Therefore, suppression of the statement was properly denied (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759). [420]*420Defendant’s contention that he should have been granted youthful offender status is without merit. The grant of that relief lies within the discretion of the court (People v Williams, 78 AD2d 642). Defendant received the benefit of the plea bargain and received the sentence promised. Considering the seriousness of the crime and the relatively short sentence imposed, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny defendant the additional benefit of youthful offender treatment. Thompson, J. P., O’Connor, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 419, 482 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-walsh-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack