From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Di Marcantonio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 1986
117 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

February 3, 1986

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Mazzei, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

There being no indication in the record that defendant requested youthful offender status at the time of sentencing, he must be deemed to have waived such relief (see, People v McGowen, 42 N.Y.2d 905; People v. Busuttil, 115 A.D.2d 655). Furthermore, even had such a request been made and denied, the facts at bar are not such as would warrant the award of youthful offender status. Defendant alternatively requests that his sentence be reduced to the minimum allowable term in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15). However, the evidence before the sentencing court led to the reasonable conclusion that a minimum of two years was necessary to carry out the rehabilitative and other objectives of our sentencing laws (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85-86).

The requirement that a verdict following a nonjury trial be rendered within a reasonable time (CPL 320.20 [d]; People v South, 41 N.Y.2d 451, 454) was not violated by the seven-day delay between completion of the four-day trial and the rendition of a written decision. Although CPL 320.20 (5) was technically violated when the trial court neglected to designate and state upon the record, prior to summation, the counts upon which it would render a verdict, since defendant was convicted of an offense specified in the indictment, and not of any lesser included offenses, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Pitello, 97 A.D.2d 801).

No abuse of discretion was committed in denying defendant's request for a continuance pending determination of the codefendant's motion to dismiss. Finally, sufficient evidence supported the conviction of defendant for burglary in the first degree, since it could reasonably be concluded that an andiron, thrown into the victim's face at eye level by defendant, was a dangerous instrument capable of causing serious physical injury (see, Penal Law § 140.30; § 10.00 [13]). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Di Marcantonio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 1986
117 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Di Marcantonio

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STEVEN J. DI…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 3, 1986

Citations

117 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Wimes

The delay between the first and second days of trial appears to have been occasioned by court scheduling and…

People v. Williams

The granting of youthful offender treatment is discretionary (see, People v. Williams, 124 A.D.2d 615, lv…