People v Cardona

Annotate this Case
People v Cardona 2016 NY Slip Op 07671 Decided on November 16, 2016 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 16, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
2015-05544
(Ind. No. 14-00701)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Marcus Cardona, appellant.



Christopher J. Smith, Middletown, NY, for appellant.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, NY (Elizabeth L. Schulz of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered June 19, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the County Court abused its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status is precluded by his appeal waiver, the validity of which the defendant does not contest (see People v Pacherille, 25 NY3d 1021, 1024).

To the extent the defendant contends that the County Court, in effect, entirely abrogated its responsibility to determine whether the defendant was entitled to youthful offender status (see id. at 1023; People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497), such contention is belied by the record, which supports the view that the court based its determination on, inter alia, the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, as well as the contents of the presentence investigation report (see People v Cruickshank, 105 AD2d 325, 334, affd sub nom. People v Dawn Maria C., 67 NY2d 625).

CHAMBERS, J.P., DICKERSON, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.