From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ortega

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 1985
114 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

November 12, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

The sole contention raised by defendant, who was 17 years of age at the time of sentencing, is that the court improperly denied him youthful offender status. In view of the violent and brutal nature of defendant's crime, youthful offender status was denied. The court went on to sentence defendant to an indeterminate prison term of 5 to 15 years in lieu of the previously negotiated sentence of 6 to 18 years.

The determination of whether to grant or deny 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 Massa, 93 A.D.2d 926). Such treatment is a matter of privilege rather than a right and should be granted only in the interest of justice (see, CPL 720.20 [a]; People v Drayton, 39 N.Y.2d 580, rearg denied 39 N.Y.2d 1058). Mere eligibility does not mandate youthful offender treatment (People v Williams, 78 A.D.2d 642).

Upon our review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in denying youthful offender status and, therefore, the court's determination in this regard will not be disturbed. Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ortega

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 1985
114 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Ortega

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EDIBERTO ORTEGA…

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

Date published: Nov 12, 1985

Citations

114 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

People v. Adel N.

CPL 720.20 (5) (b) provides the court with factors that shall be considered in determining whether to grant…

People v. Zanghi

The superior court information, therefore, was not jurisdictionally defective and defendant effectively…