| People v Richardson |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 04343 [128 AD3d 988] |
| May 20, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joshua Richardson, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Heidi Bota of counsel; Bianca Harlow onthe brief), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove andSholom J. Twersky of counsel; Gregory Musso on the brief), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Murphy, J.), both rendered April 5, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the first degreeunder indictment No. 1105/06, and robbery in the second degree under indictment No.1321/06, respectively, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that the sentencingcourt made an independent determination regarding whether he should be treated as ayouthful offender and adequately placed on the record its reasons for denying himyouthful offender status (see CPL 720.20 [1]; People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497 [2013]; cf. People v Evans, 126 AD3d721 [2015]; People vThen, 121 AD3d 1025 [2014]). Under the circumstances of this case, includingthe seriousness of the crimes and the defendant's failure to complete certain programsoffered as a condition of youthful offender treatment, including absconding from oneprogram and remaining a fugitive for many months, the Supreme Court providentlyexercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender treatment (see People v Almonte, 122AD3d 870 [2014]; People vBooker, 111 AD3d 759 [2013]).
That portion of the sentence which imposed concurrent terms of postreleasesupervision was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Dillon,J.P., Balkin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.