People v Meriwether
2008 NY Slip Op 04548 [51 AD3d 823]
May 13, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 16, 2008


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Rahmel Meriwether, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Erica Horwitz of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel ofcounsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman,J.), rendered September 12, 2006, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the thirddegree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment ofthree years, plus three years of postrelease supervision.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, byreducing the sentence imposed from a determinate term of imprisonment of three years, plusthree years of postrelease supervision, to a definite term of imprisonment of one year; as somodified, the judgment is affirmed.

Based upon our review of the circumstances presented in this case, including the defendant'syouth, family background, and community involvement, as well as the People's recommendationto the sentencing court that the defendant receive a more lenient sentence, and the People'sposition on appeal that the sentence imposed was excessive, we find it appropriate to exercise ourdiscretion in the interest of justice to modify the judgment by reducing the sentence imposed to adefinite term of imprisonment of one year (see Penal Law §§ 70.02 [2] [c];70.45 [1]; People v Vaughn, 40AD3d 1135, 1136 [2007]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]; see also People v Pittman, 48 AD3d709 [2008]; People v Bruce L.,44 AD3d 688 [2007]).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should have granted him youthful [*2]offender treatment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v St. Hilaire, 48 AD3d834 [2008]; People v Warde,45 AD3d 879, 880 [2007]). In any event, the denial of youthful offender treatment was aprovident exercise of the court's discretion (see People v St. Hilaire, 48 AD3d 834 [2008]; People v Pinheiro, 44 AD3d 798[2007]). Lifson, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Eng, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.