From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cahill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 8, 1993
190 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 8, 1993

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.).


Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

At the resentencing proceeding, the prosecution, for the first time, filed a statement pursuant to CPL 400.21 alleging that the defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge of armed robbery in the first degree in the State of Florida. The defendant did not deny the allegation, but argued that since he had been granted youthful offender status in accordance with Florida law, the robbery charge could not constitute a prior felony conviction for the purposes of Penal Law § 70.06.

The court properly resentenced the defendant as a second felony offender, since youthful offender status in Florida deals with the conditions of the sentence to be imposed and does not vitiate the underlying conviction for a felony (see, Fla Stat Annot, tit 47, § 958.04; People v Kuey, 186 A.D.2d 684; People v Arroyo, 179 A.D.2d 393; People v Elliott, 99 Misc.2d 794). In addition, the defendant's age at the time of the Florida offense would have rendered him ineligible for youthful offender status under the laws of this State (see, CPL 720.10; People v Duffy, 83 A.D.2d 563; cf., People v Carpenteur, 21 N.Y.2d 571).

Since the court was required to resentence the defendant as a second felony offender (see, People v Scarbrough, 66 N.Y.2d 673, revg 105 A.D.2d 1107, 1108, on dissenting opn of Boomer, J.), it is of no consequence that the prosecution did not file the prior felony conviction statement until the commencement of the resentencing proceeding (see, People v Bouchard 149 A.D.2d 980). In addition, the resentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the trial is not properly before the Court. Alleged errors committed at the trial may not be raised on an appeal from a resentence, regardless of whether or not they were raised on the appeal from the original judgment (see, People v Manino, 90 A.D.2d 777; People v Wright, 48 A.D.2d 909, revd on other grounds 41 N.Y.2d 172). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Cahill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 8, 1993
190 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Cahill

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BRIAN CAHILL, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 8, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
593 N.Y.S.2d 537

Citing Cases

People v. Tatta

III With respect to the issues raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief, we find that most of…

People v. Somerville

In New York, neither the negligence of the People nor of the court authorizes the imposition of a first…