People v Lee
2010 NY Slip Op 09651 [79 AD3d 1641]
December 30, 2010
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 16, 2011


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Tymonn Lee, Appellant.

[*1]The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Kristin M. Preve of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michelle L. Cianciosa of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D'Amico, J.), rendered April2, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in thesecond degree and robbery in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the lawby vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted toErie County Court for resentencing in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendantappeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted murder in thesecond degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]) and robbery in the first degree(§ 160.15 [1]). We agree with defendant that County Court failed to set forth on the recordits determination denying defendant's request for youthful offender treatment or the reasons forthat determination (see CPL 720.20 [1]). Pursuant to CPL 720.20 (1), the court has astatutory obligation to determine, on the record, whether an eligible youth should be affordedyouthful offender treatment where, as here, the defendant requests such treatment (see People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 491[2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 897 [2006]; People v Martinez, 301 AD2d 615 [2003],lv denied 99 NY2d 656 [2003]). Despite defendant's eligibility for youthful offendertreatment, the court did not articulate the reasons for its denial of defendant's request. Wetherefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Courtfor resentencing after a determination whether defendant should be sentenced as a youthfuloffender (see People v Mattis, 46AD3d 929, 932 [2007]; Rivera, 27 AD3d 491 [2006]; Martinez, 301 AD2d615 [2003]). In light of our determination, we do not address defendant's remaining contentions.Present—Centra, J.P., Carni, Sconiers and Pine, JJ.


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.