| People v Brodhead |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03710 [106 AD3d 1337] |
| May 23, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDarion J. Brodhead, Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams,J.), rendered March 26, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
In satisfaction of an indictment, as well as another pending charge, defendantpleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Inaccordance with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to seven years in prison, tobe followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, contending thatCounty Court abused its discretion in denying his application for youthful offender statusand that his sentence is harsh and excessive.
We affirm. "The decision to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within thesound exercise of the sentencing court's discretion and, absent a clear abuse of thatdiscretion, its decision will not be disturbed" (People v McLucas, 58 AD3d 950,951 [2009] [citations omitted]; accord People v Clark, 84 AD3d 1647, 1647 [2011]).Inasmuch as defendant was convicted of an armed felony, his eligibility for youthfuloffender status required, as relevant here, a showing of "mitigating circumstances thatbear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed" (CPL 720.10 [3];see CPL 720.10 [2] [a] [ii]; People v Ramales, 70 AD3d 518, 519 [2010], lvdenied 15 NY3d 756 [2010]), which he failed to make. Further, even if he were[*2]eligible, County Court advised defendant prior toaccepting his guilty plea that it would not grant him youthful offender status (seePeople v Clark, 84 AD3d at 1647; see generally People v Wise, 29 AD3d 1216, 1217 [2006],lv denied 7 NY3d 852 [2006]; People v Sharlow, 12 AD3d 724, 726 [2004], lvdenied 4 NY3d 748 [2004]). In light of defendant's violation of probation after beingadjudicated a juvenile delinquent and the circumstances surrounding the other pendingcharge that was encompassed by his guilty plea, we would find that County Court did notabuse its discretion (see Peoplev Steck, 83 AD3d 1297, 1297 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 802 [2011]).Finally, regarding defendant's claim that his negotiated sentence is harsh and excessive,we find no extraordinary circumstances or any abuse of discretion warranting a reductionof the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Whalen, 101 AD3d 1167, 1169 [2012], lvdenied 20 NY3d 1105 [2013]; People v Helstein, 95 AD3d 1564, 1564 [2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 997 [2012]).
Rose, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.