From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Chappelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 19, 2001
282 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Decided and Entered: April 19, 2001.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (La Buda, J.), rendered January 29, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the first degree.

O'Connell Aronowitz (Michael L. Koenig of counsel), Albany, for appellant.

Donald A. Williams, District Attorney (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), Kingston, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Defendant and a codefendant entered a private residence to steal personal property. When the homeowner discovered them, they assaulted and injured her. They were both indicted on charges of burglary in the first degree and assault in the second degree, and each ultimately entered a plea of guilty to the burglary charge. County Court granted the codefendant's request for youthful offender treatment, but denied defendant's similar request and sentenced him to a prison term of 3 to 6 years. On this appeal, defendant claims only that County Court erred in denying youthful offender treatment.

"The decision to grant youthful offender status lies within the sound discretion of the sentencing court and, absent a clear abuse of discretion, the court's determination will not be disturbed * * *" (People v. Butcher, 236 A.D.2d 742, 742, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 891 [citation omitted]). The record establishes that the disparate treatment here was based upon County Court's justifiable view that, despite defendant's apparent remorse for participating in the burglary, he failed to accept any responsibility for his role as the primary aggressor whose unprovoked attack injured an innocent person in her own home. In light of this, County Court's refusal to accord defendant youthful offender treatment was not an abuse of discretion, despite the recommendation of the Probation Department and defendant's lack of a criminal record (see,People v. Mettler, 259 A.D.2d 834; People v. Jacobs, 228 A.D.2d 753, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 987). Nor do we find that the circumstances here, such as defendant's tragic loss of an older brother a year prior to the burglary, warrant a substitution of our own discretion for that of the trial court (cf., People v. Cruikshank, 105 A.D.2d 325, 333 n 4, affd sub nom. People v. Dawn Maria C., 67 N.Y.2d 625).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Chappelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 19, 2001
282 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Chappelle

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. CHAD CHAPPELLE…

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

Date published: Apr 19, 2001

Citations

282 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
726 N.Y.S.2d 465

Citing Cases

People v. Wolcott

In view of this, and upon our review of the record, we discern no abuse of the court's discretion (see People…

People v. Wolcott

In view of this, and upon our review of the record, we discern no abuse of the court's discretion (see People…