People v. Gutierrez, 140 A.D.3d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · Go Syfert
People v. Gutierrez, 140 A.D.3d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Barnes (nyappdiv, 2022-06-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Barnes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
People v Mendez , 148 AD3d 555, 555 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1083 [2017]; People v Gutierrez , 140 AD3d 407, 408 [1st Dept 2016]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." HENDERSON, CURTIS N., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
Contrary to the People’s contention, the court’s statements during the plea proceeding to the effect that it was not inclined to grant defendant youthful offender status do not obviate the need for remittal (see People v Eley, 127 AD3d 583, 584 ; see also People v Gutierrez, 140 AD3d 407, 408 ; People v Munoz, 117 AD3d 1585, 1585 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Henderson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Contrary to the People’s contention, the court’s statements during the plea proceeding to the effect that it was not inclined to grant defendant youthful offender status do not obviate the need for remittal (see People v Eley, 127 AD3d 583, 584 [2015]; see also People v Gutierrez, 140 AD3d 407, 408 [2016]; People v Munoz, 117 AD3d 1585, 1585 [2014]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Henderson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Contrary to the People’s contention, the court’s statements during the plea proceeding to the effect that it was not inclined to grant defendant youthful offender status do not obviate the need for remittal (see People v Eley, 127 AD3d 583, 584 [2015]; see also People v Gutierrez, 140 AD3d 407, 408 [2016]; People v Munoz, 117 AD3d 1585, 1585 [2014]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Wanel Gutierrez, Appellant
2478/12 1350 2303/13.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 2, 2016.
140 A.D.3d 407
Acosta, Saxe, Gische, Webber, Kahn.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

[*408] Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered February 26, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of one year, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the larceny sentence and remanding for a youthful offender determination on that conviction only, and otherwise affirmed.

The court sufficiently advised defendant of the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, “notwithstanding that it omitted the word ‘jury’ from its reference [s] to giving up the right to a trial” (People v Williams, 137 AD3d 706, 706 [1st Dept 2016]).

Defendant was ineligible to be considered for youthful offender (YO) treatment in connection with his burglary conviction because he was 19 years old when the offense was committed. However, although it is clear from the discussion of YO treatment during plea proceedings that the court was not inclined to grant such treatment on the larceny conviction, the court did not make the requisite explicit determination on the record at the sentencing proceeding, requiring that the matter be remanded for that purpose (see People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497 [2013]; People v Basono, 122 AD3d 553 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1069 [2015]; People v Smith, 113 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2014]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentences.

Concur— Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Gische, Webber and Kahn, JJ.