From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ciminera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 28, 1994
202 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 28, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Santagata, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the defendant correctly asserts that he did not waive his right to appeal his judgment of conviction (see, People v Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273), we find that the issues he raises on appeal are without merit.

The defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would not receive youthful offender treatment, and he did not attempt to withdraw his plea. Accordingly, the defendant waived his right to seek appellate review of this issue (see, People v Polansky, 125 A.D.2d 342; People v. Ifill, 108 A.D.2d 202). In any event, 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 (see, People v. Ortega, 114 A.D.2d 912). We find no improvident exercise of discretion in denying youthful offender status.

Nor was the defendant's sentence unduly harsh and excessive. Bracken, J.P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ciminera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 28, 1994
202 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Ciminera

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH CIMINERA…

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

Date published: Mar 28, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
612 N.Y.S.2d 874

Citing Cases

People v. Vazquez

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not…

People v. Stanley

The defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would not receive youthful offender treatment,…