Legal Opinion · Dissent

The People v. Anthony N. Pacherille

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 12, 2015No. 57Published

1DissentRivera, J.

In People v Rudolph, we held that CPL 720.20 (1) mandates “a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” (21 NY3d 497, 501 [2013]). We thus foreclosed any role for a negotiated plea constraining youthful offender (YO) determination because the legislative mandate that “a court decide whether [YO] treatment is justified” provides an opportunity for juveniles to “have a real likelihood of turning their lives around,” and therefore “is just too valuable, both to the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. People v. LopezNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
  2. Graham v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  3. People v. HansenNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
  4. J. D. B. v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  5. People v. RudolphNew York Court of Appeals · 2013

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API