People v. Carpenteur, 21 N.Y.2d 571 (1968)
A youthful offender adjudication in another state, based on statutes and policy considerations similar to New York’s, should be considered when determining predicate felonies for repeat offender sentencing, even though the New York statute preventing the use of youthful offender adjudications technically applies only to those made within New York.
Summary
Richard Carpenteur pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery and was sentenced as a second felony offender based on a prior California conviction. In California, he had been adjudicated a youthful offender. New York law prevents using a youthful offender adjudication as a predicate for multiple offender treatment, but the prosecution argued this only applied to New York adjudications. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because Carpenteur was eligible for youthful offender treatment in New York, and California’s determination was based on similar statutes and policies, the California adjudication should preclude using the prior offense for repeat offender sentencing.
Facts
In 1951, when he was 18 years old, Richard Carpenteur was convicted of robbery in California.
Instead of sentencing, he was remanded to the California Youth Authority, which is a disposition similar to a youthful offender adjudication in New York.
California law would not allow this disposition to be used as a predicate for multiple felony offender treatment.
Carpenteur later pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree in New York.
Procedural History
The defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender in New York based on the prior California conviction.
He challenged this sentence, arguing that the California adjudication should not be considered a felony conviction for repeat offender purposes.
The case reached the New York Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether a youthful offender adjudication in California, where the defendant was eligible for similar treatment in New York, can be used as a predicate felony conviction for sentencing purposes in New York, given that New York law prohibits the use of its own youthful offender adjudications for such purposes.
Holding
No, because the defendant was under 19 at the time of the California offense and eligible for youthful offender treatment in New York. The California court, acting under a similar statute and applying identical policy considerations, concluded the defendant should be treated as a youthful offender. Therefore, it was error to consider the California conviction as a felony in New York for sentencing as a second felony offender.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that while New York law generally determines whether an out-of-state conviction can be used for multiple offender treatment, this case presented a unique circumstance.
The court acknowledged that the defendant’s actions in California would have warranted a felony conviction in New York, but a New York court could also have labeled him a youthful offender.
Quoting the statute, the court stated that on its face, section 913-n only requires this result where the defendant had been adjudicated a youthful offender “ under the provisions of this title”, that does not mean that we may disregard the California determination.
The court emphasized that the defendant was eligible for youthful offender treatment in New York at the time of the California offense and that the California court’s decision was based on similar statutes and policy considerations.
Therefore, the court concluded that the California determination should be determinative of the defendant’s status under section 1941, precluding the use of the California conviction for repeat offender sentencing in New York.
The court noted a revised version of the section recently incorporated into the new Penal Law (L. 1965, ch. 1030, eff. Sept. 1, 1967), a defendant’s previous conviction is not counted unless a sentence of imprisonment in excess of one year was imposed and the defendant was actually imprisoned under such circumstances (§ 70.10, subd. 1, par. [b]). This suggests a legislative intent to limit the use of prior convictions for repeat offender sentencing.