Opinion
617 KA 16-02097
09-30-2022
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. ODYSSTY D.R., Defendant-Appellant.
JILL L. PAPERNO, ACTING PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DREW R. DUBRIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
JILL L. PAPERNO, ACTING PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DREW R. DUBRIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed.
Memorandum: We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to County Court to make and state for the record a determination whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status (see generally People v. Middlebrooks , 25 N.Y.3d 516, 525-527, 14 N.Y.S.3d 296, 35 N.E.3d 464 [2015] ). On remittal, the court adjudicated defendant a youthful offender and, inasmuch as defendant had already served a term of imprisonment exceeding the maximum sentence that could have been imposed, the court sentenced defendant to time served.
Defendant's only remaining contentions on the initial appeal involve challenges to the validity of the waiver of the right to appeal and to the severity of the sentence. Regardless of the validity of the waiver of the right to appeal, defendant's contentions are moot inasmuch as defendant has served the sentence in its entirety (see People v. Scarborough , 205 A.D.3d 1220, 1221-1222, 166 N.Y.S.3d 613 [3d Dept. 2022] ; People v. Williams , 199 A.D.3d 1446, 1447, 154 N.Y.S.3d 592 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 931, 164 N.Y.S.3d 10, 184 N.E.3d 831 [2022] ; People v. Griffin , 239 A.D.2d 936, 936, 659 N.Y.S.2d 613 [4th Dept. 1997] ). Defendant's contention raised on resubmission to this Court—i.e., that the conviction should be vacated and replaced with a finding that defendant is a youthful offender (see CPL 720.20 [3] ), is also moot inasmuch as County Court granted defendant's application for a youthful offender adjudication, vacated the originally imposed sentence as illegal, and sentenced defendant to time served—i.e., the court awarded defendant all the relief to which he was entitled (cf. People v. Sutki S. , 188 A.D.3d 1270, 1271, 132 N.Y.S.3d 814 [2d Dept. 2020] ; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne , 50 N.Y.2d 707, 713-714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ).