From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Moskowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 9, 1984
103 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

July 9, 1984

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), imposed October 4, 1982, upon his conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 1/2 to 3 years, as a prior felony offender.


¶ Sentence affirmed.


¶ On April 29, 1982, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in satisfaction of a four-count indictment. Prior to sentencing, the People filed a predicate felony statement based upon defendant's prior Federal conviction, rendered May 10, 1979, of the crime of bank robbery in the first degree. Defendant had been sentenced to three years' probation for the Federal offense pursuant to the Federal Youth Corrections Act (see US Code, tit 18, § 5010, subd [a]). In view of his plea of guilty in the instant case, defendant's probation was extended until May 9, 1983.

¶ Until a "youth offender" under the Federal Youthful Offender Act is unconditionally discharged before the expiration of the maximum sentence imposed or the period of probation theretofore fixed by the court, the offender stands convicted of a crime ( People v. Celli, 105 Misc.2d 1005, 1010, affd 91 A.D.2d 1071; cf. United States v. Fryer, 545 F.2d 11; People v. Garcia, 93 Misc.2d 667; cf. People v. Rivera, 100 A.D.2d 914). In the instant case, there was no unconditional discharge under the Federal Youthful Offender Act prior to defendant's commission of the instant offense. Nor was defendant issued a certificate vacating the conviction (US Code, tit 18, § 5021, subd [b]). Therefore defendant was properly sentenced as a prior felony offender (see People v. Duffy, 83 A.D.2d 563). Contrary to defendant's assertion, this is not a situation where the sentencing court was impermissibly attempting to convert a youthful offender adjudication into a judgment of conviction ( People v. Gary O'D., 93 A.D.2d 841; cf. People v. Mervin, 119 Misc.2d 132). Lazer, J.P., O'Connor, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Moskowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 9, 1984
103 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

People v. Moskowitz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ARNOLD MOSKOWITZ…

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

Date published: Jul 9, 1984

Citations

103 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)