| People v Woullard |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01637 [115 AD3d 1053] |
| March 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v EbanWoullard, Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams,J.), rendered May 20, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofrobbery in the first degree.
When he was 16 years old, defendant twice shot the victim while attempting to stealmarihuana from him. Defendant was thereafter charged in a 13-count supersedingindictment with various crimes in connection therewith. Defendant subsequently pleadedguilty to one count of robbery in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment andwas sentenced, in accord with the negotiated plea agreement, to 10 years in prison to befollowed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, arguing thathis plea must be vacated because County Court failed to consider affording him youthfuloffender status.
We affirm. Defendant's argument—made in reliance on the recent decision inPeople v Rudolph (21NY3d 497 [2013])—that County Court was required to make a youthfuloffender determination despite his plea and the fact that he did not seek youthful offenderstatus is unavailing. In Rudolph, the Court of Appeals held that a sentencingcourt must make "a youthful offender determination in every case where thedefendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgoit as part of a plea bargain" (id. at 501 [emphasis added]; see CPL 720.20[1]; see also People vPacheco, 110 AD3d 927, 927 [2013]). We are of the view that [*2]Rudolph does not apply here because defendant wasnot eligible for youthful offender status.[FN1]
As relevant here, "[u]nder CPL 720.10 (1) and (2), a defendant is 'eligible' foryouthful offender status if he or she was younger than 19 at the time of the crime,unless the crime is one of several serious felonies excluded by the statute"(People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d at 500 [emphasis added]; see CPL 1.20[41]; Penal Law § 70.02). Here, although defendant was less than 19 at the timethe crime was committed (see CPL 720.10 [1]), he was convicted of an armedfelony (see CPL 1.20 [41]; Penal Law §§ 70.02, 160.15 [2]) andwas, therefore, not eligible for youthful offender status (see CPL 720.10 [1], [2][a] [ii]; People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d at 500; People v Brodhead, 106 AD3d 1337, 1337 [2013], lvdenied 22 NY3d 1087 [2014]).[FN2] Accordingly, we conclude that County Court was not required to make a determinationas to whether defendant should have been treated as such. To rule otherwise would resultin a defendant being deemed eligible for youthful offender status solely on the basis ofmeeting the statutory age requirement, without regard to the nature of the crime of whichhe or she was convicted. In our view, such an interpretation would be contrary both tothe definition of an "eligible youth" as set forth in CPL 720.10 (2) and to the plainlanguage of Rudolph. Moreover, considering defendant's concession that therecord does not support an argument that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily andintelligently made, we reject his remaining claim that his plea should nonetheless bevacated (see People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d at 502).
Peters, P.J., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Footnote 1: We reach thisconclusion notwithstanding the People's concession that defendant was so eligible.
Footnote 2: We recognize that anage-eligible defendant who has been convicted of an excluded felony may seek youthfuloffender treatment by demonstrating "mitigating circumstances that bear directly uponthe manner in which the crime was committed" (CPL 720.10 [3] [i]; see People vBrodhead, 106 AD3d at 1337). However, where, as here, no such showing wasmade, the defendant is not an eligible youth (see People v Brodhead, 106 AD3dat 1337; People v Stokes,28 AD3d 592, 592 [2006]; People v Hudson, 2 AD3d 230, 230 [2003]).