AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of JERMAINE D., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On September 17, 2004 following his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of robbery in the first degree ( see Penal Law § 160.15) — a designated felony act pursuant to Family Court Act § 301.2 (8) — the appellant was placed on probation for a period of 24 months. Approximately three months later, on December 13, 2004, the appellant admitted having committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree ( see Penal Law § 265.01).

On this record, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in directing a restrictive placement with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (hereinafter OCFS), upon a finding that the appellant violated conditions of probation of a prior order of disposition in connection with a designated felony act ( see Family Court Act § 352.2; §§ 353.5, 360.3 [6]; Matter of Alfredo H., 25 AD3d 798; Matter of Michael R., 223 AD2d 465).

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the record reflects that the court made its determination in accordance with Family Court Act § 352.2 (3) and § 353.5. As noted in the order of disposition on the violation of probation charge, the court determined, based on competent evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing, that the appellant requires supervision and confinement, that he is beyond parental and court control, and that his delinquent behavior is escalating. Among other things, only three months into his period of probation following a prior knife-point robbery, the appellant, the court noted, "was found to have conspired to commit a gunpoint robbery with others also armed with loaded guns." We find no basis to disturb the court's determination, which is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Court Act § 353.5; Matter of Ralph D., 163 AD2d 752).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN THE MATTER OF JERMAINE D
(May 2, 2006)