Opinion
1074 KA 10-02419
11-14-2014
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Laquan CRIMM, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (David R. Juergens of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (David R. Juergens of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO AND WHALEN, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of, inter alia, two counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[1], [3] ), defendant contends and the People correctly concede that County Court erred in failing to determine whether defendant, an eligible youth (see CPL 720.20[1] ), should be afforded youthful offender status. Pursuant to CPL 720.20(1), the sentencing court must make “a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” (People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, 501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ; see People v. Scott, 115 A.D.3d 1342, 1343, 983 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; People
v. Smith, 112 A.D.3d 1334, 1334, 978 N.Y.S.2d 504 ). Here, there was no mention during the plea proceeding or at sentencing whether defendant would be adjudicated a youthful offender. We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to make and state for the record “a determination of whether defendant is a youthful offender” (Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d at 503, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings.