Legal Opinion · Concurrence

The People v. William Middlebrooks / The People v. Fabrice Lowe

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 11, 2015No. 88 / No. 89Published

1ConcurrenceStein, J.

The majority holds that a sentencing court must always determine whether a defendant who has any possibility of establishing eligibility for youthful offender status is, in fact, so eligible. In my view, that holding represents an unwarranted extension of our decision in People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]) and a strained reading of the relevant statutory language. I would hold that a defendant who is presumptively ineligible for youthful offender treatment must request, and the burden rests on such defendant to establish, that he or she is an eligible youth, rather than obligating the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. People v. RudolphNew York Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. Buechel v. BainNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
  3. Priest v. HennessyNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  4. People v. FoyNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
  5. People v. BecoatsNew York Court of Appeals · 2011

6 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