People v. Lane

11 Citing cases

  1. People v. Farmer

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 3353 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Defendant also argues that County Court abused its discretion in denying him youthful offender status. As defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree and was the sole perpetrator of the crime, "he was required to demonstrate mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed in order to be eligible for that status" (People v Lane, 192 A.D.3d 1262, 1263 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see CPL 720.10 [2] [a]; [3] [i]; People v Middlebrooks, 25 N.Y.3d 516, 527-528 [2015]). Although defendant argues that his age at the time of the crime, his background and the fact that he may have to register as a sex offender for life constitute mitigating circumstances warranting youthful offender status, "traditional sentencing factors, such as the defendant's age, background and criminal history, are not appropriate to the mitigating circumstances analysis. Instead, the sentencing court must rely only on factors related to the defendant's conduct in committing the crime" (People v Colon, 208 A.D.3d 1551, 1553 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1071 [2023]; see People v Williams, 202 A.D.3d 1162, 1164 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 954 [2022]). Inasmuch as defendant has not identified factors in support of his claim for youthful offender status r

  2. People v. Williams

    202 A.D.3d 1162 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 15 times

    Although there is no indication that the first victim sustained injuries as a result of the armed robbery, the record does not otherwise disclose any mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed. Under these circumstances, County Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that defendant was not an eligible youth within the meaning of CPL 720.10(3) and, therefore, was ineligible for a youthful offender adjudication (seePeople v. Lane, 192 A.D.3d 1262, 1263, 143 N.Y.S.3d 455 [2021] ; People v. Martz, 181 A.D.3d at 981, 119 N.Y.S.3d 310 ). As a final matter, in light of "the nature of the crimes committed and the fact that defendant agreed to the sentence imposed as part of his negotiated plea agreement, we find no extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice" ( People v. Martz, 181 A.D.3d at 981, 119 N.Y.S.3d 310 ).

  3. People v. Lane

    No. 2022-00482 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 27, 2022)

    and, in January 2010, received an aggregate sentence of 10 years in prison to be followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision (192 A.D.3d 1262, 1262-1263 [2021]). Following a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]), County Court denied defendant's request for a downward departure, classified him as a risk level two sex offender and designated him as a sexually violent offender.

  4. People v. Lane

    201 A.D.3d 1266 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 8 times

    (1) Appeal from an order of the County Court of Columbia County (Koweek, J.), entered December 27, 2021, which classified defendant as a risk level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act, and (2) motion pursuant to CPL 460.30(1) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree and, in January 2010, received an aggregate sentence of 10 years in prison to be followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision ( 192 A.D.3d 1262, 1262–1263, 143 N.Y.S.3d 455 [2021] ). Following a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6–C [hereinafter SORA]), County Court denied defendant's request for a downward departure, classified him as a risk level two sex offender and designated him as a sexually violent offender.

  5. People v. Lane

    202 A.D.3d 32 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    Garry, P.J. (1) Appeal from a decision of the County Court of Columbia County (Koweek, J.), dated July 10, 2019, which classified defendant as a risk level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act, and (2) motion pursuant to CPL 460.30(1) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree and, in January 2010, received an aggregate sentence of 10 years in prison to be followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision ( 192 A.D.3d 1262, 1262–1263, 143 N.Y.S.3d 455 [2021] ). Following a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6–C [hereinafter SORA]) prior to his release from prison, County Court, in a bench decision, denied defendant's request for a downward departure, classified him as a risk level two sex offender and designated him as a sexually violent offender.

  6. People v. Vanleuvan

    199 A.D.3d 1131 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant argues that County Court abused its discretion in denying his application for youthful offender status and, at the outset, the record reflects that the parties understood this issue to be excluded from the scope of his unchallenged appeal waiver (seePeople v. Driggs, 24 A.D.3d 888, 889 n., 804 N.Y.S.2d 703 [2005] ; cf. People v. Pacherille, 25 N.Y.3d 1021, 1023–1024, 10 N.Y.S.3d 178, 32 N.E.3d 393 [2015] ; People v. Smith, 34 A.D.3d 1127, 1127, 824 N.Y.S.2d 504 [2006] ). Nevertheless, as defendant was convicted of "criminal sexual act in the first degree[ ] and was the sole perpetrator of [said] crime[ ], he was required to demonstrate mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed in order to be eligible for" youthful offender status ( People v. Lane, 192 A.D.3d 1262, 1263, 143 N.Y.S.3d 455 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see CPL 720.10[2][a] ; [3][i]; People v. Wilson, 181 A.D.3d 1318, 1318–1319, 121 N.Y.S.3d 486 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1116, 133 N.Y.S.3d 508, 158 N.E.3d 525 [2020] ; People v. Robertucci, 172 A.D.3d 1782, 1782–1783, 101 N.Y.S.3d 751 [2019] ). County Court rejected defendant's arguments regarding the presence of mitigating circumstances.

  7. People v. Vanleuvan

    No. 2021-06118 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 10, 2021)

    Defendant argues that County Court abused its discretion in denying his application for youthful offender status and, at the outset, the record reflects that the parties understood this issue to be excluded from the scope of his unchallenged appeal waiver (see People v Driggs, 24 A.D.3d 888, 889 n [2005]; cf. People v Pacherille, 25 N.Y.3d 1021, 1023-1024 [2015]; People v Smith, 34 A.D.3d 1127, 1127 [2006]). Nevertheless, as defendant was convicted of "criminal sexual act in the first degree[] and was the sole perpetrator of [said] crime[], he was required to demonstrate mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed in order to be eligible for" youthful offender status (People v Lane, 192 A.D.3d 1262, 1263 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see CPL 720.10 [2] [a]; [3] [i]; People v Wilson, 181 A.D.3d 1318, 1318-1319 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1116 [2020]; People v Robertucci, 172 A.D.3d 1782, 1782-1783 [2019]). County Court rejected defendant's arguments regarding the presence of mitigating circumstances.

  8. People v. Williams

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 697 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Under these circumstances, County Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that defendant was not an eligible youth within the meaning of CPL 720.10 (3) and, therefore, was ineligible for a youthful offender adjudication (see People v Lane, 192 A.D.3d 1262, 1263 [2021]; People v Martz, 181 A.D.3d at 981). As a final matter, in light of "the nature of the crimes committed and the fact that defendant agreed to the sentence imposed as part of his negotiated plea agreement, we find no extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice" (People v Martz, 181 A.D.3d at 981).

  9. People v. Lane

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 482 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    30 (1) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree and, in January 2010, received an aggregate sentence of 10 years in prison to be followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision (192 A.D.3d 1262, 1262-1263 [2021]). Following a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]), County Court denied defendant's request for a downward departure, classified him as a risk level two sex offender and designated him as a sexually violent offender.

  10. People v. Lane

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 7324 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    30 (1) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree and, in January 2010, received an aggregate sentence of 10 years in prison to be followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision (192 A.D.3d 1262, 1262-1263 [2021]). Following a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]) prior to his release from prison, County Court, in a bench decision, denied defendant's request for a downward departure, classified him as a risk level two sex offender and designated him as a sexually violent offender.