From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kevin M.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 14, 2016
145 A.D.3d 798 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

12-14-2016

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. KEVIN M. (Anonymous), appellant.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Andrea L. Bible of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel; Gregory Musso on the brief), for respondent.


Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Andrea L. Bible of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel; Gregory Musso on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.), rendered July 29, 2014, convicting him of assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the convictions are deemed vacated and replaced with a finding that the defendant is a youthful offender (see CPL 720.20[3] ), the sentence is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the imposition of sentence pursuant to Penal Law § 60.02 and for further proceedings in accordance with CPL 720.35.

The record is insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Bradshaw, 76 A.D.3d 566, 569–570, 906 N.Y.S.2d 93 ; People v. Shoman, 74 A.D.3d 843, 901 N.Y.S.2d 533 ). Accordingly, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal does not preclude review of his contention that the Supreme Court should have afforded him youthful offender treatment. Furthermore, the defendant sufficiently preserved his claim for youthful offender treatment by raising the issue at sentencing (see People v. Gomez, 60 A.D.3d 782, 783, 874 N.Y.S.2d 582 ; People v. Murray, 57 A.D.3d 921, 869 N.Y.S.2d 344 ).

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the defendant's request for youthful offender treatment, as recommended by the Department of Probation, should have been granted (see People v. Charles S., 102 A.D.3d 896, 961 N.Y.S.2d 197 ; People v. David S., 78 A.D.3d 1205, 911 N.Y.S.2d 647 ; People v. Bruce L., 44 A.D.3d 688, 843 N.Y.S.2d 370 ; People v. Nadja B., 23 A.D.3d 394, 805 N.Y.S.2d 549 ).

DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, MALTESE and DUFFY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Kevin M.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 14, 2016
145 A.D.3d 798 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Kevin M.

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. KEVIN M. (Anonymous), appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 14, 2016

Citations

145 A.D.3d 798 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
41 N.Y.S.3d 916
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 8376

Citing Cases

People v. Tyjhe H.

Here, the People agree that youthful offender treatment is warranted. Under the particular circumstances of…

People v. Carlos M.-A.

Moreover, the presentence report indicated that the defendant expressed genuine remorse and a sincere desire…