From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rogler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1076 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 7, 1992

Appeal from the Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record and consideration of the relevant factors (see, People v Cruickshank, 105 A.D.2d 325, 333-334, affd sub nom. People v Dawn Maria C., 67 N.Y.2d 625), we find no abuse of discretion in the court's denial of defendant's application for youthful offender status (see, People v New, 171 A.D.2d 1006, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 998; People v Ortega, 114 A.D.2d 912, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 887). Further, we decline to exercise our discretion in the interest of justice to grant him that status (cf., People v Shrubsall, 167 A.D.2d 929, 930). Finally, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive.


Summaries of

People v. Rogler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 1076 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Rogler

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RUDOLF "RUDY" ROGLER…

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

Date published: Oct 7, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 1076 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
588 N.Y.S.2d 689

Citing Cases

People v. Fagan

We further conclude that the court properly allowed a witness to give unsworn testimony ( see, CPL 60.20…

People v. Drayton

Therefore, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237). The court…