| People v Romano |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02699 [49 AD3d 1082] |
| March 27, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher A.Romano, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard D. Northrup Jr., District Attorney, Delhi (John L. Hubbard of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Delaware County (Becker, J.),rendered April 23, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in thesecond degree.
In satisfaction of a superior court information charging defendant with the crime of rape inthe first degree, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of rape in the second degree and waivedhis right to appeal. At sentencing defendant's request for youthful offender treatment was denied.He was sentenced pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement to six months in jail, which time hehad already served, and 10 years of probation. Defendant now appeals, contending that CountyCourt erred by not considering that he was eligible for youthful offender treatment.
Where, as here, it is asserted that the sentencing court failed to consider youthful offenderstatus for an eligible defendant, the challenge to denial of such status is not precluded by a waiverof the right to appeal (see People vGriffin, 17 AD3d 927, 927 [2005]; People v Harrington, 281 AD2d 748, 749[2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 830 [2001]). Nevertheless, as the record reveals that CountyCourt expressly considered—and denied—defendant's request for youthful offendertreatment, we find no error (see People v Harrington, 281 AD2d at 749; cf. People vAiken, 186 AD2d 897, 899 [1992]; People v Gannon, 162 AD2d 818, 819 [1990]). Areview of the sentencing minutes reveals that County Court was aware that defendant waseligible for such treatment prior to ruling on his request and there is nothing in the record to[*2]indicate that he was denied youthful offender status based ona misunderstanding regarding his eligibility.
Defendant's remaining contentions are precluded by his waiver of appeal (see People vCallahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; People v Griffin, 17 AD3d at 927).
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.