| People v Jones |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04511 [107 AD3d 1589] |
| June 14, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJeffrey Jones, Appellant. |
—[*1] William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.),rendered January 14, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty,of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea ofguilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law §265.03 [3]). We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalidbecause "the minimal inquiry made by County Court was insufficient to establish that thecourt engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of theright to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice" (People v Box, 96 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 1024 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Hamilton, 49AD3d 1163, 1164 [2008]; People v Brown, 296 AD2d 860, 860 [2002],lv denied 98 NY2d 767 [2002]). Indeed, on this record there is no basis uponwhich to conclude that the court ensured "that the defendant understood that the right toappeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea ofguilty" (People v Lopez, 6NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). We nevertheless reject defendant's contention that the courtabused its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status (see People v Guppy, 92 AD3d1243, 1243 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 961 [2012]; People v Potter, 13 AD3d1191, 1191 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 889 [2005]), and we decline toexercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender(see generally People v Shrubsall, 167 AD2d 929, 930-931 [1990]). Finally, weconclude that "the court's reliance on the presentence report for its determination thatdefendant would not be afforded youthful offender status 'constitutes an adequateexplanation for the denial of defendant's request for such status' " (People v Wargula, 86 AD3d929, 930 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]). Present—Scudder,P.J., Centra, Fahey, Carni and Lindley, JJ.