Opinion
2014-05-15
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tremaine THOMASON–ROSE, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (David J. Klem of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Yuval Simchi–Levi of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (David J. Klem of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Yuval Simchi–Levi of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered October 11, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of three counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 3 1/2 years, unanimously affirmed.
The determination of youthful offender status is a matter of discretion ( People v. Drayton, 39 N.Y.2d 580, 584, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1, 350 N.E.2d 377 [1976] ). Here, the record demonstrates that the court fully considered all of the mitigating factors set forth in a pre-pleading memorandum and denied defense counsel's request to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender. We discern no reason to disturb the court's exercise of its discretion in denying youthful offender treatment for two separate incidents, involving three different victims. In the first robbery, defendant and his co-defendant followed an elderly couple onto an elevator, and proceeded to repeatedly punch both victims in the face, causing them both to suffer extensive bruising, before stealing the husband's cell phone and wallet and the wife's purse. In the second robbery, just three hours later, the victim was kicked and punched, and sustained a puncture wound in his back, cuts to his arms and bruises, before his wallet and cell phone were stolen. The police recovered a folding knife and a razor blade at the scene. We note that defendant proceeded with this extensively negotiated plea bargain, even after being made aware that he would not be sentenced as a youthful offender ( see People v. Xue, 30 A.D.3d 166, 815 N.Y.S.2d 566 [1st Dept.2006] ). Nor do we find the imposition of a five year period of post-release supervision to be excessive.