People v Rashad M.

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Rashad M. 2007 NY Slip Op 51272(U) [16 Misc 3d 128(A)] Decided on June 20, 2007 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 20, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2006-92 S CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

RASHAD M. (ANONYMOUS), Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Patricia M. Filiberto, J.), rendered December 16, 2005. The judgment adjudicated defendant a youthful offender, upon his guilty plea to sexual misconduct, and sentenced him to a six-year term of probation.


Judgment adjudicating defendant a youthful offender affirmed.

Defendant was initially charged with rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]). Following extensive negotiations, defendant pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct (Penal Law § 130.20 [1]). In exchange for his guilty plea, defendant was promised a sentence of six years' probation. Although defendant was sentenced to the agreed-upon period of probation, on appeal he argues that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh and excessive. It is well settled that "where a sentence is within the permissible statutory guidelines, it will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing that the sentencing court abused its discretion or that extraordinary circumstances exist which require a modification of the sentence" (People v Veeneman, 10 Misc 3d 136[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 52133[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). In this case, the sentence imposed was specifically authorized (Penal Law § 65.00 [3] [b] [ii]) and bargained for, and defendant has not presented any extraordinary circumstances which require a modification of the sentence. Accordingly, the judgment adjudicating defendant a youthful offender is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.

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.