Veney v. United States

658 A.2d 625, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 88, 1995 WL 235493
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 20, 1995
Docket93-CF-456
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 658 A.2d 625 (Veney v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
658 A.2d 625, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 88, 1995 WL 235493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veney-v-united-states-dc-1995.