Opinion
11-02-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kron T. KEITH, appellant.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered March 5, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application for youthful offender status. Since the defendant was convicted of armed felony offenses (see CPL 1.20[41][b] ; Penal Law §§ 70.02[1][a] ; 160.15[4] ), he could only be adjudicated a youthful offender if there existed mitigating circumstances that bore directly upon the manner in which the crimes were committed, or if his participation in the crimes was “relatively minor” (CPL 720.10[3] ). Here, there were insufficient mitigating circumstances that bore directly upon the manner in which the subject robberies were committed (see People v. Garcia, 84 N.Y.2d 336, 341, 618 N.Y.S.2d 621, 642 N.E.2d 1077 ; People v. Wright, 44 A.D.3d 692, 841 N.Y.S.2d 892 ; People v. Stokes, 28 A.D.3d 592, 813 N.Y.S.2d 503 ; People v. O'Neill, 86 A.D.2d 213, 215, 449 N.Y.S.2d 515 ). Furthermore, the defendant's role in the crimes was not minor (see People v. Watts, 91 A.D.3d 678, 935 N.Y.S.2d 893 ; People v. Henry, 76 A.D.3d 1031, 907 N.Y.S.2d 685 ; People v. Joseph, 50 A.D.3d 1159, 1160, 858 N.Y.S.2d 664 ).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing proceeding. The defendant's contention that his attorneys failed to make arguments in favor of youthful offender status or for a sentence less than the one actually imposed are belied by the record (see People v. Philpot, 99 A.D.3d 1025, 952 N.Y.S.2d 455 ). In addition, the defendant received an advantageous plea and sentence, and the record does not cast doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel (see People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 565–566, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112 ; People v. Erwin, 121 A.D.3d 710, 992 N.Y.S.2d 893 ; People v. Philpot, 99 A.D.3d 1025, 952 N.Y.S.2d 455 ; People v. Portillo, 95 A.D.3d 1361, 944 N.Y.S.2d 889 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
DILLON, J.P., HALL, SGROI, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.