People v Steck

2011 NY Slip Op 03148 [83 AD3d 1297]

April 21, 2011

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, June 8, 2011

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jovan Steck,Appellant.

—[*1]Larissa C. Wasyl, Albany, for appellant.

Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered April15, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of robbery in the seconddegree and burglary in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a superior court information charging him with burglary in the seconddegree, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree. Under the terms of the pleaagreement, he was to serve a period of interim probation which, if successfully completed, wouldresult in a reduction of the charge to petit larceny and a youthful offender adjudication with asentence of probation. In addition, defendant signed a Parker admonishment. Prior tosentencing, defendant was charged with four counts of robbery in the second degree and twocounts of assault in the third degree in violation of the Parker admonishment. As a result,County Court indicated its intention not to sentence defendant as a youthful offender and toimpose a sentence of 21/3 to 7 years on the burglary conviction. With regard to theother crimes, a plea offer was extended under which defendant would plead guilty to robbery inthe second degree and be sentenced to 10 years in prison, to be followed by five years ofpostrelease supervision, to run concurrently with the other sentence. Defendant accepted the pleaoffer and was sentenced accordingly. He now appeals.

Defendant argues that the sentence is harsh and excessive. Based upon our review of therecord, we disagree. While he was awaiting sentencing on the burglary conviction, defendantparticipated in a series of robberies, many of which involved elderly victims. During these [*2]robberies, he engaged in intimidating and threatening conduct whileacting as part of a gang. In view of this, as well as defendant's flagrant disregard of theParker admonishment, we find no abuse of discretion nor any extraordinarycircumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Favor, 49 AD3d 915,916 [2008]; People v Bates, 22AD3d 963, 964 [2005]). Additionally, County Court specifically advised defendant at thetime of the plea that it would not grant him youthful offender status. The court's denial of thatstatus did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see People v Wise, 29 AD3d 1216, 1217 [2006], lv denied7 NY3d 852 [2006]).

Peters, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed.