IN THE MATTER OF MANUEL R., A PERSON ALLEGED TO BE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT,
APPELLLANT, v. PRESENTMENT AGENCY, RESPONDENT.
89 N.Y.2d 1043, 681 N.E.2d 1271, 659 N.Y.S.2d 825 (1997).
May 1, 1997
1 No. 54 (1997 NY Int. 60)
Decided May 1, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This MEMORANDUM is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Raymond E. Rogers, for Appellant.
George Gutwirth, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed without costs.
Based on various drug-related transactions on February 5, 1995, Family
Court found appellant, then 15, to have committed acts that, if done
by an adult, would have constituted felonies under the Penal Law.
Relying on findings that appellant on April 27 and July 20, 1994 had
previously committed acts that would have constituted felonies, Family
Court further found that appellant had committed a "designated felony
act"1* and sentenced him accordingly. Appellant urges that, because
both 1994 felony findings were consolidated in a single Family Court
order and he was sentenced for both offenses on the same day--August
18, 1994 --the requirements of Family Court Act § 301.2(8)(vi) were
not satisfied. Like Family Court and the Appellate Division we reject
appellant's argument.
Appellant's argument rests largely on People v Morse (62 NY2d 205),
where this Court read into Penal Law § 70.08 a requirement of
"sequentiality" for enhanced punishment of persistent violent felony
offenders, meaning that a defendant must be separately sentenced on
each earlier conviction before commission of the latest offense. The
Court drew that conclusion from reading the relevant Penal Law
sentencing provisions in pari materia. Appellant asks us also to read
a sequentiality requirement into Family Court Act § 301.2(8)(vi).
Although the Family Court Act permits us to look to criminal law
decisions (see, Family Ct Act § 303.1(2)), appellant's analogy is
flawed. Unlike Penal Law § 70.08, Family Court Act § 301.2(8)(vi)
explicitly requires only two findings of prior felonies, a requirement
SNIPPETS:
APPELLLANT, v. PRESENTMENT AGENCY, RESPONDENT.
This MEMORANDUM is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Raymond E. Rogers, for Appellant.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed without costs.
Based on various drug-related transactions on February 5, 1995, Family Court found appellant,
Relying on findings that appellant on April 27 and July 20, 1994 had previously committed
Appellant urges that, because both 1994 felony findings were consolidated in a single Family
Like Family Court and the Appellate Division we reject appellant's argument.
Appellant's argument rests largely on People v Morse (62 NY2d 205), where this Court read
The Court drew that conclusion from reading the relevant Penal Law sentencing provisions in
Unlike Penal Law § 70.08, Family Court Act § 301.2explicitly requires only two findings of
Family Court Act § 301.2is not part of the single "system of related general provisions
Illustrative of the difference is the fact that under the Family Court Act, Family Court is
Finally, because juveniles are only subject to the Family Court Act until age 16, it would
As evidenced by the present case, the time it would take for a juvenile to have such findings
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
|
