People v. Young
| Decision Date | 15 March 1993 |
| Citation | 191 A.D.2d 605,595 N.Y.S.2d 69 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Amador YOUNG, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (James Branden, of counsel), for appellant.
William L. Murphy, Dist. Atty., Staten Island (Karen F. McGee and Frank Piccininni, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and SULLIVAN, O'BRIEN, RITTER and PIZZUTO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered February 27, 1991, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of 8 to 24 years imprisonment and 5 to 15 years imprisonment, respectively.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by providing that the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is not preserved for appellate review since he failed to move prior to the imposition of sentence to withdraw his plea based on this ground (see, People v. McVay, 148 A.D.2d 474, 538 N.Y.S.2d 622). Moreover, reversal in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction is not warranted since the defendant accepted a bargained-for plea to a lesser offense than that charged in the indictment (see, People v. McVay, supra ).
Since the defendant's act of stabbing his victim, for which he was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, was a material element of the robbery in the first degree conviction (i.e., he caused serious injury to the victim in immediate flight from forcibly stealing property from the victim), the sentences for these two crimes should run concurrently with each other (see, Penal Law § 70.25[2]; People v. Day, 73 N.Y.2d 208, 211, 538 N.Y.S.2d 785, 535 N.E.2d 1325).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Laureano
...(see, People v. Day, 73 N.Y.2d, at 211, 538 N.Y.S.2d 785, 535 N.E.2d 1325 supra; compare, People v. Catone, supra; People v. Young, 191 A.D.2d 605, 595 N.Y.S.2d 69; People v. Grant, 96 A.D.2d 867, 465 N.Y.S.2d 750). If the statutory elements do overlap under either prong of the statute, the......
-
People v. Pringle
...on those robbery and burglary counts (see, Penal Law § 70.25[2]; People v. Campos, 206 A.D.2d 633, 614 N.Y.S.2d 604; People v. Young, 191 A.D.2d 605, 595 N.Y.S.2d 69; People v. German, 139 A.D.2d 529, 526 N.Y.S.2d 803, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 1027, 530 N.Y.S.2d 562, 526 N.E.2d 54; People v. Sm......
- People v. White
-
People v. Carruthers
...to withdraw his plea based on this ground (see, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 467 N.Y.S.2d 355, 454 N.E.2d 938; People v. Young, 191 A.D.2d 605, 595 N.Y.S.2d 69; People v. McVay, 148 A.D.2d 474, 538 N.Y.S.2d 622). Nor would reversal be warranted in the exercise of our interest of jus......