Opinion
December 15, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.).
There was no abuse of discretion in denying defendant youthful offender status (CPL 720.20; People v Cruickshank, 105 A.D.2d 325, 333, affd sub nom. People v Dawn Maria C., 67 N.Y.2d 625). The purpose of the statute, which is to protect hasty youth from the social stigmatization of a criminal record for a thoughtless act, would not be served by affording such relief to defendant, who callously shot his victim over the repayment of a small debt. Additionally, defendant's unfavorable presentence report and the fact that defendant stood convicted of previous offenses do not warrant the grant of such favorable relief.
Defendant's contention that his confession under Indictment No. 6020/89 should have been suppressed, because questioning by precinct detectives concerning an unrelated murder case constituted a subterfuge which elicited his confession to the crime charged, is without merit. Indeed, there is no evidence that defendant was in any way "tricked" into confessing. To the contrary, the hearing evidence amply illustrates that defendant was given proper Miranda warnings, and that his confession was voluntary.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.