The court providently exercised its discretion in denying youthful offender treatment. Because defendant was convicted of one of the sex crimes enumerated in CPL 720.10(2)(a)(iii), he was not eligible for such treatment in the absence of mitigating circumstances that "bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed" (CPL 720.10[3]). The record does not establish any mitigating circumstances of the type contemplated by the statute, and, given the circumstances...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
