| People v Mix |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07623 [111 AD3d 1417] |
| November 15, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDakota Mix, Appellant. |
—[*1] Lori Pettit Rieman, District Attorney, Little Valley, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (M. William Boller, A.J.),rendered January 23, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty,of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty ofcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31),defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his request toadjudicate him a youthful offender. We reject that contention. " 'The determination. . . whether to grant . . . youthful offender status rests withinthe sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts andcircumstances of the case' " (People v Dawson, 71 AD3d 1490, 1490 [2010], lvdenied 15 NY3d 749 [2010]). Here, the record reflects that the court considered therelevant facts and circumstances in denying defendant's request. Although the crime wasnot particularly grave and did not involve violence, the remaining factors to beconsidered upon the application for youthful offender treatment weighed against such adetermination (cf. People v Shrubsall, 167 AD2d 929, 930 [1990]). Defendanthas been involved with probation since he was 12 years old based on orders adjudicatinghim to be a person in need of supervision and juvenile delinquency adjudications and hasbeen offered many services, but he continued to violate probation and was ultimatelyplaced with the Office of Children and Family Services for 18 months. Defendant did nottake responsibility for the instant offense and was uncooperative during his presentenceinterview. Defendant dropped out of school after the 10th grade and, although he was 19years old at the time of sentencing, he had no verifiable employment and no plans forfuture employment in the area. The probation officer recommended against probation andbelieved that defendant's prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructivelife were poor. We therefore conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion indenying defendant's request. Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Carni andWhalen, JJ.