People v. Wallace, 246 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Wallace, 246 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Carvalho
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the record does not support the defendant’s contention that the trial court gave the jury supplemental instructions in his and defense counsel’s absence (see People v Pagan, 256 AD2d 361 [1998]; People v Washington, 246 AD2d 676, 677 [1998]; People v Williams, 220 AD2d 788 [1995]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Popson
N.Y. App. Div. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
Because defendant’s notice of appeal limits the scope of the appeal to the sentence imposed, we do not address defendant’s remaining contention (see, Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 450.10, at 665-666; see also, People v Wallace, 246 AD2d 676 ; People v Stevens, 120 AD2d 553 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Martonez Wallace
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 26, 1998.
246 A.D.2d 676
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his notice of appeal, from so much of a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), rendered February 5, 1996, as, upon convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, denied him youthful offender status, and imposed sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

Mere eligibility for youthful offender status does not mandate youthful offender treatment. The decision to grant such treatment lies wholly within the discretion of the court (see, CPL 720.20; People v Vera, 206 AD2d 494; People v Barr, 168 AD2d 625). On this record, the court’s determination to deny youthful offender treatment to the defendant was not an improvident exercise of discretion.

We note that because the defendant’s notice of appeal limited the instant appeal to “denial of youthful offender status only” (emphasis in the original), we may not reach any other issue (see, City of Mount Vernon v Mount Vernon Hous. Auth., 235 AD2d 516; W.J.F. Realty Corp. v Town of Southampton, 240 AD2d 657; Royal v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 122 AD2d 132, 133). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.