Veney v. United States

658 A.2d 625, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 88, 1995 WL 235493
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided April 20, 1995·No. 93-CF-456·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Following his guilty plea to manslaughter while armed, D.C.Code §§ 22-2401, -3202 (1989), Veney asked the court to sentence him pursuant to the provisions of the District of Columbia Youth Rehabilitation Act (DCY-RA), D.C.Code § 24-801 et seq. (1989). The judge elected to sentence him as an adult. On appeal, Veney contends that the judge failed to make an explicit finding that Veney would not benefit from a DCYRA sentence. This court has recently held, however, that a “no-benefit” finding is not required by the DCYRA. Peterson v. United States, 657 A.2d 756, 763 (D.C.1995) (opinion of King, J., joined by TERRY, J.) Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is hereby

Affirmed.

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

Veney v. United States, 658 A.2d 625, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 88, 1995 WL 235493 (D.C. 1995).

658 A.2d 625 (Veney v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Veney v. United States
681 A.2d 428 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1996)
Trice v. United States
662 A.2d 891 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1995)