People v Hubbard
2010 NY Slip Op 05292 [74 AD3d 1580]
June 17, 2010
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2010


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Quayshaun R. Hubbard, Appellant.

[*1]Jon Kosich, Greenville, for appellant.

Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Susan Rider-Ulacco of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), renderedDecember 19, 2008, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the firstdegree (two counts), burglary in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, robbery in thesecond degree, robbery in the third degree and assault in the second degree.

Defendant was charged in a seven-count indictment with various crimes after he and anotherindividual forced their way into the victim's home and proceeded to restrain, assault and rob him.Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of burglary in the first degree,burglary in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, robberyin the third degree and assault in the second degree. County Court sentenced defendant to anaggregate prison term of 12 years and postrelease supervision of five years, and he now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant, who was 16 years old when he committed the crimes in question,argues that County Court erred in failing to consider him for youthful offender treatment. Hisage was mentioned only in passing at sentencing, however, and he waived his right to beconsidered for youthful offender treatment by failing to request it (see People vMcGowen, 42 NY2d 905, 906 [1977]; People v Rogers, 5 AD3d 871, 872 [2004], lv denied 3NY3d 647 [2004]; cf. People v Robinson, 110 AD2d 939, 939 [1985]). Were we toaddress the issue, we would perceive no reason to accord youthful offender status to defendantgiven the [*2]gravity of the offenses and his substantial role incommitting them (see People vHopper, 39 AD3d 1030, 1031-1032 [2007]; People v Howard, 1 AD3d 718, 719 [2003]).

Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.