| People v Cameron |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04017 [107 AD3d 733] |
| June 5, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Maurice Cameron, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan,and Holly L. Serrette of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Mondo, J.), rendered May 16, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degree,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the particular circumstances of this case, including the "age, experience andbackground" of the defendant (People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]), therecord does not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligentlywaived his right to appeal (seePeople v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]). Therefore, review ofthe defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should have afforded him youthfuloffender treatment is not precluded (see People v Charles S., 102 AD3d 896 [2013]).
However, the defendant's contention that he should have been granted youthfuloffender treatment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Meriwether, 51AD3d 823, 824 [2008]; People v St. Hilaire, 48 AD3d 834 [2008]). In any event,under the circumstances of this case, including the defendant's repeated failure to complywith the conditions of his plea agreement, the denial of youthful offender treatment was aprovident exercise of the Supreme Court's discretion (see CPL 720.20 [1];People v Meriwether, 51 AD3d at 824; People v Kinloch, 7 AD3d 734, 735 [2004]; People vGonzalez, 265 AD2d 216 [1999]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Roman,JJ., concur.