"The grievous error ... cries out for resolution"

You might have heard about the case of Marquis Dixon, the Albany teen convicted of stealing a pair of sneakers from another teen in downtown Albany in March of 2014. His case has gotten has a lot of attention -- from advocates such as Capital Area Against Mass Incarceration, and a series of columns written by Chris Churchill at Times Union -- because Dixon was sentenced to nine years in prison for the crime.

Advocates for Dixon have argued that sentence is unfairly harsh, especially given the limited evidence that he might have displayed or implied he had a gun during the crime (Dixon admitted to stealing the sneakers but said he never had a gun).

On Thursday a state appellate court ruled on Dixon's appeal. And the short story is that it decided Dixon should get youthful offender status and that his sentence be reduced to 1-3 years in prison.

You can read the decision online, which walks through the various elements in the case. For example: The court was unpersuaded that the limited evidence about the gun -- basically, the word of the victim that he saw something black and blocky tucked into Dixon's waistband -- should knock out that part of the case.

But the part about considering Dixon for youthful offender status is remarkable. (Presiding justice Karen Peters raised the issue during the oral arguments in the appeal.) The court basically concludes that everyone involved in the case screwed up on the question of whether Dixon should be eligible for the status.

A clip:

Here, all counsel before Supreme Court, as well as the Probation Department, misunderstood the relevant sentencing provisions. The presentence investigation report inaccurately stated that, although defendant would have been eligible for youthful offender treatment based upon his age, he was ineligible for such treatment because he had committed an armed felony. At sentencing, trial counsel for defendant acknowledged - but seemingly did not dispute - the presentence report's representation of defendant's youthful offender status. Nor is there any indication in the record that the People were aware that youthful offender treatment was an available option. For its part, Supreme Court sua sponte addressed defendant's potential eligibility to be treated as a youthful offender, stating on the record, "To the extent that anyone perceived youthful offender to be considered it is denied." The court's summary denial, however, was insufficient to satisfy the statutory mandate of CPL 720.10.

[The decision then goes into some detail about how Dixon's potential eligibility for the status given mitigating circumstances should have been determined on the record by the court.]

The grievous error of the Probation Department, the People and defense counsel, while not specifically raised on appeal, cries out for resolution. Since we are vested with the broad, plenary power to modify a sentence in the interest of justice, we can address this injustice and, if warranted, exercise our power to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender ... Thus, we consider first whether defendant is an "eligible youth" for purposes of youthful offender treatment by assessing whether "mitigating circumstances [exist] that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed" (CPL 720.10 [3]). We conclude that such mitigating circumstances are present here.

The court then goes on to explain the decision, citing the fact that no one was injured during the crime and Dixon never made any gestures with the object said to be a gun.

Mistakes happen, even when people are well intentioned and trying to do a good job. That's one of the reasons there are appeals courts.

But it does make you wonder about how many of these sorts of mistakes happen to teens or people who otherwise aren't in a position to know all the rules -- or able to afford an attorney to sort them out -- in cases that don't get attention. And how often do those people end up having the mistake addressed?

Comments

Chris Churchill deserves a lot of credit for his "J'accuse!" columns where he repeatedly raised the issue of the disproportionate punishment for the crime. I'm sure other people and groups also came to this young man's defense, but Churchill has a wide audience as a T.U. columnist and he did not let up on this story. He should get a prestigious journalism award for this.

That is some strong language in a court document.

Say Something!

We'd really like you to take part in the conversation here at All Over Albany. But we do have a few rules here. Don't worry, they're easy. The first: be kind. The second: treat everyone else with the same respect you'd like to see in return. Cool? Great, post away. Comments are moderated so it might take a little while for your comment to show up. Thanks for being patient.

The Scoop

Ever wish you had a smart, savvy friend with the inside line on what's happening around the Capital Region? You know, the kind of stuff that makes your life just a little bit better? Yeah, we do, too. That's why we created All Over Albany. Find out more.

Recently on All Over Albany

Photos from the "Inaugurate Resistance" march and rally in Albany

Thousand of people turned out in Albany Saturday for the "Inaugurate Resistance" march to protest the presidential administration of Donald Trump and rally for issues... (more)

Taking in The People's Art

Let's look at some art. That sounds like a good idea today. We got a chance this week to finally check out The People's Art... (more)

The @Hudson Park residential conversion in Albany gets planning OK

Another residential conversion -- this one will add 75 apartments to the Hudson/Park neighborhood -- got the OK from the Albany planning board Thursday evening.... (more)

Stuff to do this weekend

We do solemnly swear that we will faithfully execute the task of finding you stuff to do this weekend, and will, to the best of... (more)

Morning Blend

Inauguration Many "New York Republicans at the presidential inauguration festivities" articles: + Local state Senator George Amedore on Trump: "We need a fighter in Washington... (more)

Recent Comments

Bruce Fence Company came through for me in a big way last spring. Another local fence company gave me a price and a date and then faded away. (Perhaps a bigger job came along, but have the decency to call.) Needless, to say this failure to keep the date as promised created frustration with the neighbor on the other side of the fence. From my first telephone contact with Bruce to my first visit in their office and then through to completion of the job, every interaction was friendly and professional. The entire transaction went like clockwork.

Just down the road for Albany: paying for parking by license plate and mobile app

...has 4 comments, most recently from Mike

A good contractor for installing a fence?

...has 7 comments, most recently from Alf

The new plan for a big mixed-use development near Quackenbush Square in Albany

...has 13 comments, most recently from Stan

The @Hudson Park residential conversion in Albany gets planning OK

...has 2 comments, most recently from Stan

New online home for the Cohoes Mastodon

...has 1 comment, most recently from Tim