Opinion
2017–01760 Ind. No. 1082/15
04-24-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Darnell GREEN, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Schoepp–Wong of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Christopher S. Bae of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Schoepp–Wong of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Christopher S. Bae of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED 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, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
CPL 720.20(1) requires a court to make a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is an "eligible youth" ( CPL 720.10[2] ; see People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, 501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ; People v. Hall, 160 A.D.3d 896, 73 N.Y.S.3d 898 ). Here, as the People correctly concede, although the defendant was an eligible youth, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court made such a determination. A determination as to whether to afford a defendant youthful offender treatment "must be explicit, even if it is apparent from the record of the sentencing proceeding that the court did not believe a defendant was entitled to youthful offender treatment" ( People v. Mead, 159 A.D.3d 1040, 1041, 70 N.Y.S.3d 579 ). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine whether the defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender, and for resentencing thereafter (see People v. Foster, 162 A.D.3d 790, 790–791, 75 N.Y.S.3d 91 ; People v. Hall, 160 A.D.3d at 897, 73 N.Y.S.3d 898 ; People v. Mead, 159 A.D.3d at 1041, 70 N.Y.S.3d 579 ).
In light of our determination, the defendant's remaining contention has been rendered academic.
RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.