From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Valle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 9, 1990
163 A.D.2d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

July 9, 1990

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.).


Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was entitled to youthful offender treatment. The record indicates that the court did not promise to grant the defendant youthful offender treatment and that he pleaded guilty with the knowledge that such treatment might be denied. At sentencing, the defendant did not attempt to withdraw his pleas and consequently has waived his right to contend that he was entitled to youthful offender treatment (see, People v. Woods, 143 A.D.2d 1068; People v. Polansky, 125 A.D.2d 342). In any event, the decision to grant youthful offender treatment lies within the court's discretion. Since the defendant received the benefit of the plea bargain and received the promised sentence, there is no basis for this court to substitute its discretion for that of the sentencing court (see, People v Locke, 119 A.D.2d 834). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Valle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 9, 1990
163 A.D.2d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Valle

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAFAEL VALLE, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 9, 1990

Citations

163 A.D.2d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
559 N.Y.S.2d 666

Citing Cases

People v. Windus

The defendant pleaded guilty with the knowledge that he would be denied youthful offender treatment, and did…

People v. Hurtado

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in…