From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. King

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 9, 2017
151 A.D.3d 1665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

06-09-2017

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tyrell KING, Defendant–Appellant.

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (William G. Pixley of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Leah R. Mervine of Counsel), for Respondent.


Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (William G. Pixley of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Leah R. Mervine of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

Memorandum:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of arson in the third degree (Penal Law § 150.10[1] ), defendant contends that Supreme Court abused its discretion by denying him the promised youthful offender status. 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 A.D.3d 1490, 1490, 895 N.Y.S.2d 920, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 749, 906 N.Y.S.2d 821, 933 N.E.2d 220 ). At the plea proceeding, the court stated that, in order to receive youthful offender status, defendant would have to, inter alia, comply with electronic monitoring and attend school every day while awaiting sentencing. The court warned defendant that he would go to jail if he failed to comply with those conditions. Defendant violated the conditions by absconding for approximately four months and failing to attend school. In light of defendant's failure to comply with the conditions of the plea agreement, his contention that the court abused its discretion in denying him youthful offender status and in imposing a term of incarceration is without merit (see People v. Perkins, 188 A.D.2d 281, 281, 591 N.Y.S.2d 2 ).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

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


Summaries of

People v. King

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 9, 2017
151 A.D.3d 1665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

People v. King

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tyrell KING…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 9, 2017

Citations

151 A.D.3d 1665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
151 A.D.3d 1665