Opinion
06-10-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Luis QUINONES, Defendant–Appellant.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Victoria M. White of Counsel), for Respondent.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Victoria M. White of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM: We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to County Court to determine and state for the record whether defendant is a youthful offender ( People v. Quinones, 129 A.D.3d 1699, 1700, 12 N.Y.S.3d 429 ; see generally People v. Middlebrooks, 25 N.Y.3d 516, 525–527, 14 N.Y.S.3d 296, 35 N.E.3d 464 ; People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, 499–501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ). The proceedings upon remittal were conducted in Supreme Court (Brunetti, A.J.), and that court denied defendant's request for youthful offender treatment. The court found that there were no mitigating circumstances bearing directly on the manner in which the crime was committed and thus that defendant was not an eligible youth upon his conviction of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, an armed felony offense in which he was the sole participant (see CPL 720.10[2][a] [ii] ; [3]; People v. Lewis, 128 A.D.3d 1400, 1400, 7 N.Y.S.3d 800, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1203, 16 N.Y.S.3d 526, 37 N.E.3d 1169 ). We conclude that the court did not thereby abuse its discretion (see generally Middlebrooks, 25 N.Y.3d at 526–527, 14 N.Y.S.3d 296, 35 N.E.3d 464 ; People v. Garcia, 84 N.Y.2d 336, 342–343, 618 N.Y.S.2d 621, 642 N.E.2d 1077 ), and we decline to grant defendant's request that we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to determine that mitigating circumstances exist and adjudicate him a youthful offender (see People v. Hall, 130 A.D.3d 1495, 1496, 11 N.Y.S.3d 498, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 968, 18 N.Y.S.3d 604, 40 N.E.3d 582 ; Lewis, 128 A.D.3d at 1400–1401, 7 N.Y.S.3d 800 ; cf. People v. Amir W., 107 A.D.3d 1639, 1640–1641, 969 N.Y.S.2d 289 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.