Opinion
2021–05167, 2021–05169 Ind. Nos. 7336/09, 11061/09
03-16-2022
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Tahriq THOMPSON, appellant.
Levitt & Kaizer, New York, NY (Richard Levitt and Zachary Segal of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Levitt & Kaizer, New York, NY (Richard Levitt and Zachary Segal of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
BETSY BARROS, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, ROBERT J. MILLER, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Neil Firetog, J.), both rendered February 14, 2013, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree under Indictment No. 7336/09, and manslaughter in the first degree (two counts) under Indictment 11061/09, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are modified, on the law, by vacating the sentences imposed; as so modified, the judgments are affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
CPL 720.20(1) requires "that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain" ( People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, 501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ). As the People correctly concede, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court made a youthful offender determination despite the defendant's eligibility (see People v. Middlebrooks, 25 N.Y.3d 516, 519, 14 N.Y.S.3d 296, 35 N.E.3d 464 ; People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d at 501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ; People v. Ali–Williams, 172 A.D.3d 890, 891, 97 N.Y.S.3d 884 ; People v. Lessane, 169 A.D.3d 827, 828, 91 N.Y.S.3d 890 ; People v. Alston, 145 A.D.3d 737, 41 N.Y.S.3d 716 ).
Accordingly, we vacate the sentences, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing after making a determination as to whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment.
BARROS, J.P., RIVERA, MILLER and DOWLING, JJ., concur.