People v. Hall, 130 A.D.3d 1495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Hall, 130 A.D.3d 1495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Williams (nyappdiv, 2016-12-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We conclude that the court did not thereby abuse its discretion (see People v Agee, 140 AD3d 1704, 1704-1705 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 925 [2016]), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender (see People v Hall, 130 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 968 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We conclude that the court did not thereby abuse its discretion (see People v Agee, 140 AD3d 1704, 1704-1705 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 925 [2016]), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender (see People v Hall, 130 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 968 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Quinones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We conclude that the court did not thereby abuse its discretion (see generally Middlebrooks, 25 NY3d at 526-527; People v Garcia, 84 NY2d 336, 342-343 [1994]), and we decline to grant defendant’s request that we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to determine that mitigating circumstances exist and adjudicate him a youthful offender (see People v Hall, 130 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 968 [2015]; Lewis, 128 AD3d at 1400-1401 ; cf. People v Amir W., 107 AD3d 1639, 1640-1641 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Quinones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We conclude that the court did not thereby abuse its discretion (see generally Middlebrooks, 25 NY3d at 526-527; People v Garcia, 84 NY2d 336, 342-343 [1994]), and we decline to grant defendant’s request that we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to determine that mitigating circumstances exist and adjudicate him a youthful offender (see People v Hall, 130 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 968 [2015]; Lewis, 128 AD3d at 1400-1401 ; cf. People v Amir W., 107 AD3d 1639, 1640-1641 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) M., MURIDI, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying defendant youthful offender status in appeal No. 2, and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to afford such status (see People v Hall, 130 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 968 [2015]; People v Johnson, 109 AD3d 1191, 1191-1192 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 997 [2013]). *1643 The contention in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief with respect to appeal No. 2 was not raised when the appeal was initially heard, and it may not be raised for the first time following our remittal (see People v Baxter, 234 AD2d 932 , 932…
discussed Cited "see" AGEE, MICHAEL D., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that there is sufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances to render defendant eligible for youthful offender treatment, we nevertheless conclude, based on our review of the record and the factors relevant in making a youthful offender determination (see People v Thomas R.O., 136 AD3d 1400, 1402 ; see generally CPL 720.20 [1] [a]), that the court’s refusal to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender was not an -2- 574 KA 13-02107 abuse of discretion (see People v Lewis, 128 AD3d 1400, 1400 , lv denied 25 NY3d 1203 ), and we decline to exercise our in…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Agee
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that there is sufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances to render defendant eligible for youthful offender treatment, we nevertheless conclude, based on our review of the record and the factors relevant in making a youthful offender determination (see People v Thomas R.O., 136 AD3d 1400, 1402 [2016]; see generally CPL 720.20 [1] [a]), that the court’s refusal to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender was not an abuse of discretion (see People v Lewis, 128 AD3d 1400, 1400 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1203 [2015]), and we decline to exercise our inte…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Agee
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that there is sufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances to render defendant eligible for youthful offender treatment, we nevertheless conclude, based on our review of the record and the factors relevant in making a youthful offender determination (see People v Thomas R.O., 136 AD3d 1400, 1402 [2016]; see generally CPL 720.20 [1] [a]), that the court’s refusal to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender was not an abuse of discretion (see People v Lewis, 128 AD3d 1400, 1400 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1203 [2015]), and we decline to exercise our inte…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Brandon S. Hall
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 2, 2015.
130 A.D.3d 1495
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered April 22, 2009. The appeal was held by this Court by order entered July 3, 2014, decision was reserved and the matter was remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings (119 AD3d 1349 [2014]). The proceedings were held and completed.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

[*1496] Memorandum: We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to County Court to make and state for the record its determination whether defendant is a youthful offender (People v Hall, 119 AD3d 1349, 1350 [2014]). Upon remittal the court, after considering the appropriate factors (see People v Cruickshank, 105 AD2d 325, 334 [1985], affd sub nom. People v Dawn Maria C., 67 NY2d 625 [1986]), refused to grant defendant youthful offender status. We conclude that the court did not thereby abuse its discretion (see People v Johnson, 109 AD3d 1191, 1191-1192 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 997 [2013]), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender (see generally People v Shrubsall, 167 AD2d 929, 930-931 [1990]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and DeJoseph, JJ.