People v. West

• Decision Date: 28 June 2013
• Citation: 107 A.D.3d 1639,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04931,969 N.Y.S.2d 289
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. AMIR W., Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

107 A.D.3d 1639
969 N.Y.S.2d 289
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04931

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
AMIR W., Defendant–Appellant.

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

June 28, 2013.

[969 N.Y.S.2d 290]

Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Christine M. Cook of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

[107 A.D.3d 1640]Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ). We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” ( People v. Box, 96 A.D.3d 1570, 1571, 946 N.Y.S.2d 525,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 1024, 953 N.Y.S.2d 557, 978 N.E.2d 109 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Hamilton, 49 A.D.3d 1163, 1164, 856 N.Y.S.2d 375;People v. Brown, 296 A.D.2d 860, 860, 745 N.Y.S.2d 368,lv. denied98 N.Y.2d 767, 752 N.Y.S.2d 7, 781 N.E.2d 919).

We further agree with defendant that he should have been afforded youthful offender status. “The youthful offender provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law

[969 N.Y.S.2d 291]

emanate from a legislative desire not to stigmatize youths between the ages of 16 and 19 with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts which, although crimes, may not have been the serious deeds of hardened criminals” ( People v. Drayton, 39 N.Y.2d 580, 584, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1, 350 N.E.2d 377;see generallyCPL 720.20). The factors to be considered in determining an application for youthful offender treatment include “the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, mitigating circumstances, defendant's prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, defendant's reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, defendant's attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life” ( People v. Cruickshank, 105 A.D.2d 325, 334, 484 N.Y.S.2d 328,affd. sub nom. People v. Dawn Maria C., 67 N.Y.2d 625, 499 N.Y.S.2d 663, 490 N.E.2d 530;see People v....