People v. Hall
Decision Date | 03 July 2014 |
Citation | 119 A.D.3d 1349,990 N.Y.S.2d 384,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05071 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Brandon S. HALL, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles T. Noce, Conflict Defender, Rochester (Kathleen P. Reardon of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his guilty plea, of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30[2] ). By failing to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution ( see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;People v. Hawkins, 94 A.D.3d 1439, 1440, 942 N.Y.S.2d 300,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 974, 950 N.Y.S.2d 356, 973 N.E.2d 766). Contrary to defendant's contention, this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement because nothing in the plea allocution “clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” ( Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d at 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5;see People v. Moorer, 63 A.D.3d 1590, 1590–1591, 879 N.Y.S.2d 760,lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 837, 890 N.Y.S.2d 453, 918 N.E.2d 968).
As defendant further contends and the People correctly concede, however, the court erred in failing to determine whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. Defendant, an eligible youth, pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain that included a promised sentence. There was no mention during the plea proceedings whether defendant would be adjudicated a youthful offender. (CPL 720.20[1] ). The sentencing court must make “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;see People...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Mohamed
...should be afforded youthful offender status (see Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d at 503, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ; People v. Hall, 119 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 990 N.Y.S.2d 384 ).It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Erie County Court for f......
-
People v. Hall
...matter to County Court to make and state for the record its determination whether defendant is a youthful offender (People v. Hall, 119 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 990 N.Y.S.2d 384 ). Upon remittal the court, after considering the appropriate factors (see People v. Cruickshank, 105 A.D.2d 325, 334, ......
-
People v. McGuay
...question the voluntariness of the plea” (People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 666, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 ; see People v. Hall, 119 A.D.3d 1349, 1349, 990 N.Y.S.2d 384 ).We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit.It is hereby ORDERED that the jud......
-
People v. Gibson
...is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain’ ” (People v. Hall, 119 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 990 N.Y.S.2d 384, quoting Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d at 501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ). Here, as the People correctly concede, the record fa......