From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Simpson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Apr 24, 2020
182 A.D.3d 1046 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

404 KA 16–01831

04-24-2020

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tashj Y. SIMPSON, also Known as Tahj Simpson, Defendant–Appellant.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BENJAMIN L. NELSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.


TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BENJAMIN L. NELSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of robbery in the second degree ( Penal Law § 160.10[2] ), defendant contends that Supreme Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant him youthful offender status. Preliminarily, we note that defendant asserts that the court properly made an initial determination that he is an eligible youth pursuant to subdivisions two and three of CPL 720.10 (cf. People v. Lofton, 29 N.Y.3d 1097, 1098, 59 N.Y.S.3d 305, 81 N.E.3d 839 [2017] ; People v. Middlebrooks, 25 N.Y.3d 516, 524–526, 14 N.Y.S.3d 296, 35 N.E.3d 464 [2015] ). Inasmuch as defendant does not challenge that determination on this appeal, we do not address it.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant defendant youthful offender status (see People v. Lang, 178 A.D.3d 1362, 1363, 112 N.Y.S.3d 632 [4th Dept. 2019], lv . denied 34 N.Y.3d 1160, 120 N.Y.S.3d 271, 142 N.E.3d 1173, [2020] ; see generally People v. Minemier, 29 N.Y.3d 414, 421, 57 N.Y.S.3d 696, 80 N.E.3d 389 [2017] ). Additionally, having reviewed the applicable factors pertinent to a youthful offender determination (see People v. Keith B.J. , 158 A.D.3d 1160, 1160, 70 N.Y.S.3d 291 [4th Dept. 2018] ), we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to grant him such status (see People v. Macon, 169 A.D.3d 1439, 1440, 92 N.Y.S.3d 812 [4th Dept. 2019], lv . denied 33 N.Y.3d 978, 101 N.Y.S.3d 224, 124 N.E.3d 713 [2019] ; People v. Lewis, 128 A.D.3d 1400, 1400–1401, 7 N.Y.S.3d 800 [4th Dept. 2015], lv . denied 25 N.Y.3d 1203, 16 N.Y.S.3d 526, 37 N.E.3d 1169 [2015] ; see also People v. Lindsey, 166 A.D.3d 1565, 1566, 87 N.Y.S.3d 774 [4th Dept. 2018], lv . denied 32 N.Y.3d 1206, 99 N.Y.S.3d 192, 122 N.E.3d 1105 [2019] ).


Summaries of

People v. Simpson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Apr 24, 2020
182 A.D.3d 1046 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

People v. Simpson

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tashj Y. SIMPSON, also…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 24, 2020

Citations

182 A.D.3d 1046 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
120 N.Y.S.3d 910

Citing Cases

People v. Shea'Honnie D.

Because the purported waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable, it does not preclude our review of…

People v. Mosley

Further, the jury was entitled to disregard any portions of relevant testimony it found to be untruthful and…