People v. Negron

• Decision Date: 15 February 1994
• Citation: 160 Misc.2d 333,608 N.Y.S.2d 1020
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Alexander NEGRON, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 1020

608 N.Y.S.2d 1020

160 Misc.2d 333

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Alexander NEGRON, Defendant.

Supreme Court, New York County Part N.

Feb. 15, 1994.

Robert M. Baum, The Legal Aid Soc., New York City (Karen Gunther, of counsel), for defendant.

Robert H. Silbering, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., New York City (Nelson Roman, of counsel), for the State.

HAROLD BEELER, Acting Justice.

The issue, of apparent first impression, presented in this felony narcotics prosecution concerns the effect of an out of state "juvenile adjudication" on a defendant's eligibility for youthful offender treatment under CPL Section 720.10(2). Specifically, the court is called on here to determine whether this eighteen year old defendant is an "eligible youth" under CPL Section 720.10(2) notwithstanding a prior "juvenile adjudication" in Pennsylvania for an apparent felony-level offense committed when he was seventeen years old.

Defendant pleaded guilty in the instant case on June 28, 1993 to the crime of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Fourth Degree (PL Section 220.09[1] and was promised a sentence of five years' probation and youthful offender treatment, provided defendant was found to be eligible for such treatment. On the scheduled sentence date, the court learned that defendant had a 1992 "juvenile adjudication" in Pennsylvania for the offense of Possession of Heroin with Intent to Deliver (35 P.S. Section 780-113(a)[30] pursuant to which defendant was sentenced to a one year period of probation. This court postponed defendant's sentencing to give the parties an opportunity to address the question of defendant's eligibility for youthful offender treatment in light of his prior Pennsylvania juvenile adjudication.

Having reviewed the relevant portions of the record of defendant's prior Pennsylvania case, and upon careful consideration of the pertinent statutory and decisional law of both New York and Pennsylvania, this court finds, as previously set forth in its oral ruling of October 22, 1993, that defendant is eligible for youthful offender treatment in that defendant is an "eligible youth" within the meaning of CPL Section 720.10.

To be properly considered for youthful offender treatment in New York, a defendant must, at the time of conviction on a felony or misdemeanor, be an "eligible youth" which is defined, in pertinent part, as follows: " 'Youth' means a person charged with a crime alleged to have been committed when he was at least sixteen years old and less than nineteen years old ... 'Eligible Youth' means a youth who is eligible to be found a youthful offender. Every youth is so eligible unless ... such youth has previously been convicted and sentenced for a felony, or ... such youth has previously been adjudicated a youthful offender following conviction of a felony or has been adjudicated ... a juvenile delinquent who committed a designated felony act as defined in the family court act." (CPL Section 720.10, subds. (1) and (2); see also, People v. Cecil Z., 57 N.Y.2d 899, 456 N.Y.S.2d 753, 442 N.E.2d 1264).

It is undisputed that, at the time of his conviction in this case, defendant had not "previously been convicted and sentenced for a felony" in New York, and had not "previously been adjudicated a youthful offender following conviction of a felony" in this state. Nor has defendant ever been adjudicated a "juvenile delinquent" for a "designated felony act as defined in the family court act" of this State (see, CPL Section 720.10(2)(b) and (2)(c); FCA Section 301.2(8)).

The question presented, therefore, is whether defendant's 1992 "juvenile adjudication" in Pennsylvania constitutes either a prior "felony conviction" or a prior youthful offender adjudication "following conviction of a felony" such as would render defendant ineligible for youthful offender treatment in the instant case.

At the outset, it is clear that the offense underlying defendant's Pennsylvania adjudication--Possession of Heroin with Intent to Deliver--is considered a felony-level offense in that State (see, 35 P.S. Sections 780-113(a)(30) and 780-113(f)(1)). Further, inasmuch as a violation of that drug statute is punishable in Pennsylvania by a jail term of up to fifteen years for an adult offender (35 P.S. Section 780-113(f)(1)), the Pennsylvania crime would also qualify as a "felony" under this State's Penal Law (i.e., "an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year may be imposed") (see, P.L. Section 10.00(5)).

A review of the record of defendant's 1992 Pennsylvania adjudication, however, reveals that, while defendant was found guilty in a Juvenile Court proceeding of Possession of Heroin with Intent to Deliver, and was "adjudicated delinquent," he was never actually "convicted" of that, or of any, crime. In this regard, subsection (a) of 42 Pa.C.S. Section 6354 of Pennsylvania's Juvenile Act expressly provides that "[a]n order of disposition or other adjudication in a proceeding under this chapter is not conviction of crime and does not impose any civil disability ordinarily resulting from a conviction ..." (emphasis added; see also, In Interest of Wilson, 532 A.2d 1167, 367 Pa.Super. 321; app. den. 552 A.2d 249, 252, 520 Pa. 594, 598; cf., Commonwealth v. Baker, 614 A.2d 663, 531 Pa. 541).

Accordingly, this court finds that defendant's prior Pennsylvania adjudication poses no legal impediment to defendant's being found an "eligible youth" under CPL Section 720.10 since, at the time of defendant's plea in this case, he had not previously been convicted of a felony and had not previously been adjudicated a youthful offender following conviction of a felony (see, CPL Section 720.10(2)(b) and (2)(c)). This is true, moreover, notwithstanding the fact that defendant's foreign juvenile adjudication, rendered when defendant was seventeen years old, might well be deemed the "functional equivalent" of a prior youthful offender adjudication under CPL Section 720.10(2)(c).

The court notes in this regard that, while Pennsylvania has no specific "youthful offender" designation or statute, it has established, within its Court of Common Pleas, a Juvenile Court Division having original jurisdiction over crimes, including misdemeanors and felonies (other than murder) committed by "children" under the age of eighteen (see, "Official Comment" 1976, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 6302). Under Pennsylvania's Juvenile Court scheme, an age-eligible defendant can, by virtue of the aforementioned effects of 42 Pa.C.S. Section 6354(a), avoid the stigma of a criminal conviction for conduct that would otherwise constitute a felony or misdemeanor in that State.

Although there is no express statutory limit to the number of "juvenile adjudications" available to a repeat offender in Pennsylvania's Juvenile Court, the court does possess the statutory discretion to "transfer" a child's case to criminal court when it determines, following a hearing, that the child should be prosecuted as an adult (see, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 6355 ["Transfer to criminal proceedings"]. Pursuant to this "transfer" provision, "[i]f the child is fourteen years of age or older, not amenable to treatment under the juvenile system, and the charge could carry imprisonment of three years or more, inter alia, then the child may be transferred to criminal court and tried as an adult." (Commonwealth v. Baker, supra, 614 A.2d at 678 [concurring and dissenting opn. of Nix, C.J.]

Once a child is convicted of a crime as an adult, either following a transfer proceeding or otherwise, the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court loses jurisdiction over future criminal prosecutions involving the child, and the child consequently loses his eligibility for any further "juvenile adjudications" (see, definition of "Delinquent Act", 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 6302 as amended; see also, Commonwealth v. Harvin, 581 A.2d 929, 399 Pa.Super. 68).

While there are obvious differences between Pennsylvania's Juvenile Court proceedings and New York's Youthful Offender Law--most notably Pennsylvania's refusal to automatically limit a juvenile to only one felony-level "juvenile adjudication" (compare, CPL Section 720.10(2)(c), supra )--the fact remains that the practical effect of a Pennsylvania "juvenile adjudication" is virtually indistinguishable from a youthful offender adjudication in this State (see, CPL Section 720.35(1) [providing, inter alia, that "[a] youthful offender adjudication is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense"].

Moreover, to the extent New York's Youthful Offender, statute expressly permits the sentencing court to exercise its discretion to deny youthful offender treatment following conviction of a felony, even where the youth is legally eligible to receive such treatment (see, CPL Section 720.20(1)(a)), the New York statute further parallels its foreign counterpart which, as noted, permits the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court to "remove" certain cases to criminal court when it determines that juvenile treatment would be inappropriate. (See, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 6355).

Finally, and perhaps most important, the policy concerns underlying the Pennsylvania Juvenile statute, i.e., "to remove from children committing delinquent acts the consequences of criminal behavior, and to substitute therefor a program of supervision, care and rehabilitation" (42 Pa.C.S. Section 6301(b)(2)) are nearly identical to the...