Opinion
2018–14652 Ind. No. 1474/15
10-28-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Laquan BATTLE, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel; Maria Torres on the brief), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel; Maria Torres on the brief), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin Murphy, J.), rendered October 5, 2018, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and conspiracy in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The defendant contends, and the People concede, that the Supreme Court failed to determine whether he should be afforded youthful offender status ( CPL 720.20[1] ). The parties are correct that the record does not demonstrate that the court considered whether to adjudicate the defendant a youthful offender (see People v. Rudolph , 21 N.Y.3d 497, 499, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ). Accordingly, we vacate the defendant's sentence and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing after a determination of whether the defendant should be sentenced as a youthful offender (see People v. Mead , 134 A.D.3d 960, 961, 22 N.Y.S.3d 492 ; People v. Dawkins , 131 A.D.3d 482, 483, 13 N.Y.S.3d 908 ; People v. Stevens , 127 A.D.3d 791, 792, 4 N.Y.S.3d 546 ). We express no opinion as to whether the Supreme Court should afford youthful offender status to the defendant (see People v. Dawkins , 131 A.D.3d at 483, 13 N.Y.S.3d 908 ; People v. Then , 121 A.D.3d 1025, 1026, 994 N.Y.S.2d 420 ).
The defendant's remaining contention has been rendered academic in light of our determination (see People v. Then , 121 A.D.3d at 1026, 994 N.Y.S.2d 420 ).
RIVERA, J.P., MALTESE, BARROS, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.