People v. Clark

• Decision Date: 26 May 2011
• Citation: 925 N.Y.S.2d 674,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04320,84 A.D.3d 1647
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Jamaal CLARK, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

84 A.D.3d 1647
925 N.Y.S.2d 674
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04320

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jamaal CLARK, Appellant.

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

May 26, 2011.

[925 N.Y.S.2d 675]

Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, for appellant.Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.Before: ROSE, J.P., MALONE JR., McCARTHY, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.ROSE, J.P.

[84 A.D.3d 1647] Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered May 7, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

Defendant and his codefendant jointly were indicted and charged with two counts of robbery in the second degree. In full satisfaction thereof, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in the second degree and was sentenced to the agreed-upon prison term of 3 1/2 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, contending that County Court abused its discretion in denying his application for youthful offender status.

We affirm. “The decision to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound exercise of the sentencing court's discretion and, absent a clear abuse of that discretion, its decision will not be disturbed” ( People v. McLucas, 58 A.D.3d 950, 951, 871 N.Y.S.2d 482 [2009] [citations omitted]; see People v. Boyce, 2 A.D.3d 984, 987, 769 N.Y.S.2d 620 [2003], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 796, 781 N.Y.S.2d 295, 814 N.E.2d 467 [2004]; People v. Mettler, 259 A.D.2d 834, 835, 687 N.Y.S.2d 205 [1999] ). Although the Probation Department recommended that defendant be accorded youthful offender status, that recommendation was not binding on the sentencing court ( see People v. Boler, 177 A.D.2d 738, 739, 576 N.Y.S.2d 55 [1991] ), and defendant was aware that his plea agreement did not include youthful offender treatment ( see generally People v. Shoaf, 63 A.D.3d 1660, 879 N.Y.S.2d 771 [2009], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 839, 890 N.Y.S.2d 455, 918 N.E.2d 970 [2009]; People v. Wise, 29 A.D.3d 1216, 1217, 815 N.Y.S.2d 328 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 852, 823 N.Y.S.2d 782, 857 N.E.2d 77 [2006] ). Additionally, while mitigating factors indeed exist, including defendant's age at the time of the offense (17), lack of a prior criminal history and stated remorse, the record nonetheless reflects that defendant was a willing participant in the underlying robbery. Specifically,...