| People v Henning |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02874 [116 AD3d 634] |
| April 29, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jacquese Henning, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Emily L. Auletta of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus, J.), renderedSeptember 27, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of attempted robberyin the second degree (two counts) and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencinghim to an aggregate term of three years, unanimously affirmed.
Initially, we find that the record does not establish a valid waiver of defendant's rightto appeal. However, we reject his claims on the merits.
Contrary to defendant's contention, the record reveals that the court considered butrejected youthful offender treatment (compare People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497 [2013]). At acalendar appearance to discuss a possible disposition of the charges, the court determinedthat defendant was ineligible as a matter of law. That determination was correct, becausedefendant had already been adjudicated a youthful offender in a felony case, and wasthus an ineligible youth (see CPL 720.10 [2] [c]; People v Cecil Z., 57NY2d 899 [1982]). To the extent defendant is arguing that a sequentiality requirementsimilar to that contained in the predicate felony offender statutes (see e.g. PenalLaw § 70.06 [1] [b] [ii]) should apply, that argument is contrary to the plainlanguage of CPL 720.10 (2) (c).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J.,Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Clark, JJ.