People v. Barnes

• Decision Date: 01 May 2015
• Citation: 7 N.Y.S.3d 918 (Mem),2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03683,128 A.D.3d 1390
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jakota W. BARNES, Also Known as “Knees,” Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

128 A.D.3d 1390

7 N.Y.S.3d 918 (Mem)

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03683

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent

v.Jakota W. BARNES, Also Known as “Knees,” Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

May 1, 2015.

The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert L. Kemp of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (David A. Heraty Of Counsel), for Respondent.

OpinionMEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20[1] ). We conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant defendant youthful offender status (see People v. Frontuto, 114 A.D.3d 1271, 1271, 980 N.Y.S.2d 861, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1036, 993 N.Y.S.2d 250, 17 N.E.3d 505 ; People v. Johnson, 109 A.D.3d 1191, 1191–1192, 971 N.Y.S.2d 723, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 997, 981 N.Y.S.2d 2, 3 N.E.3d 1170 ), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender (see People v. Guppy, 92 A.D.3d 1243, 1243, 937 N.Y.S.2d 921, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 961, 950 N.Y.S.2d 113, 973 N.E.2d 211 ). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal “does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant's right to appeal with respect to his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” (People v. Ayala, 117 A.D.3d 1447, 1448, 984 N.Y.S.2d 764, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1033, 993 N.Y.S.2d 247, 17 N.E.3d 502 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Maracle, 19 N.Y.3d 925, 928, 950 N.Y.S.2d 498, 973 N.E.2d 1272 ). Nevertheless, we reject that challenge.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ., concur.