People v. Shuler

• Decision Date: 29 December 1969
• Citation: 306 N.Y.S.2d 1021,33 A.D.2d 806
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Willie SHULER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 1021

306 N.Y.S.2d 1021

33 A.D.2d 806

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Willie SHULER, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Dec. 29, 1969.

William Cahn, Dist. Atty., Nassau County, for respondent, Jules E. Orenstein, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel.

James J. McDonough, Atty. in Charge, Legal Aid Society of Nassau County, Crim. Div., Mineola, for appellant. Matthew Muraskin, Francis J. Valentino, Mineola, of counsel.

Before CHRIST, Acting P.J., and BENJAMIN, MUNDER, MARTUSCELLO and KLEINFELD, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered October 31, 1968 upon a prior adjudication that he was a youthful offender, on a plea of guilty, which amended judgment (1) Inter alia adjudged him guilty of violation of probation, upon his plea of guilty, and (2) certified him to the care and custody of the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission pursuant to section 209 of the Mental Hygiene Law.

Amended judgment reversed, on the law and the facts; defendant's plea of guilty to the charge of violation of probation vacated; judgment of the County Court rendered September 29, 1967 and the sentence imposed thereunder reinstated; and case remitted to the County Court for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith and in accordance with the pertinent provisions of sections 208 et seq. of the Mental Hygiene Law (as amd. by L.1969, ch. 809, eff. May 22, 1969).

Our decisions with respect to the unconstitutionality of subdivision 3 of section 913--g, and section 913--h, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, insofar as they require a defendant to consent to a summary trial without a jury in order to render him eligible for youthful offender treatment (People v. Michael A. C. (Anonymous), 32 A.D.2d 554 300 N.Y.S.2d 816; People v. Jerome C. (Anonymous), 32 A.D.2d 840, 303 N.Y.S.2d 218), do not affect the situation at bar where the guilty plea and the adjudication of defendant as a youthful offender occurred prior to May 20, 1968, wHen duncaN v. louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 s.ct. 1444, 20 l.ed.2d 491, which was given prospective effect only, was decided (see DeStefano v. Woods, 392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308; People v. Ruiz, 24 N.Y.2d 926, 301 N.Y.S.2d 988, 249 N.E.2d 766). Accordingly, the original judgment is not reversible on that ground.

However, when defendant pleaded guilty of violating probation, the County Court had 'reasonable cause to believe that the defendant * * * (was...