People v. DiMarcantonio
| Decision Date | 03 February 1986 |
| Citation | 498 N.Y.S.2d 160,117 A.D.2d 612 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Steven J. DiMARCANTONIO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John F. Middlemiss, Jr., Ronkonkoma (Anna M. Perry, of counsel), for appellant.
Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Patricia A. Harrington, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and THOMPSON, RUBIN and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mazzei, J.), rendered April 21, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of two to six years imprisonment.
Judgment affirmed.
There being no indication in the record that defendant requested youthful offender status at the time of sentencing, he must be deemed to have waived such relief (see, People v. McGowen, 42 N.Y.2d 905, 397 N.Y.S.2d 993, 366 N.E.2d 1347; People v. Busuttil, App.Div., 496 N.Y.S.2d 493). Furthermore, even had such a request been made and denied, the facts at bar are not such as would warrant the award of youthful offender status. Defendant alternatively requests that his sentence be reduced to the minimum allowable term in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15). However, the evidence before the sentencing court led to the reasonable conclusion that a minimum of two years was necessary to carry out the rehabilitative and other objectives of our sentencing laws (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85-86, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675.)
The requirement that a verdict following a nonjury trial be rendered within a reasonable time (CPL 320.20 People v. South, 41 N.Y.2d 451, 454, 393 N.Y.S.2d 695, 362 N.E.2d 246) was not violated by the seven-day delay between completion of the four-day trial and the rendition of a written decision. Although CPL 320.20(5) was technically violated when the trial court neglected to designate and state upon the record, prior to summation, the counts upon which it would render a verdict, since defendant was convicted of an offense specified in the indictment, and not of any lesser included offenses, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Pitello, 97 A.D.2d 801, 468 N.Y.S.2d 546).
No abuse of discretion was committed in denying defendant's request for a continuance pending determination of the codefendant's motion to dismiss. Finally, sufficient evidence supported the conviction of defendant for burglary in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blaine Const. Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America
...means "andiron." I can even cite several cases in which injuries are caused by andirons. See, e.g., People v. DiMarcantonio, 117 A.D.2d 612, 498 N.Y.S.2d 160, 161 (N.Y.App.Div.1986); Vaughn v. State, 52 Ala.App. 377, 292 So.2d 671, 672 (1974), rev'd, 293 Ala. 365, 304 So.2d 6 (Ala.1974); St......
-
People v. Williams
...N.Y.2d 905, 397 N.Y.S.2d 993, 366 N.E.2d 1347, rearg. denied 42 N.Y.2d 1015, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 368 N.E.2d 289; People v. Di Marcantonio, 117 A.D.2d 612, 613, 498 N.Y.S.2d 160, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 882, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 492 N.E.2d 1240; People v. Busuttil, 115 A.D.2d 655, 496 N.Y.S.2d 493......
-
People v. Waldron
...v. Andrews, 102 A.D.2d 894, 477 N.Y.S.2d 191). In any event, we find that the court's delay was reasonable (see, People v. Di Marcantonio, 117 A.D.2d 612, 613, 498 N.Y.S.2d 160; People v. Andrews, supra The defendant's other contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. ...
-
People v. Wimes
...rendering its verdict (see, CPL 320.20, 350.10; People v. South, 41 N.Y.2d 451, 393 N.Y.S.2d 695, 362 N.E.2d 246; People v. Di Marcantonio, 117 A.D.2d 612, 498 N.Y.S.2d 160, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 882, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 492 N.E.2d 1240; Matter of Nicholas R.M., 112 A.D.2d 371, 491 N.Y.S.2d 8......