| People v Dawkins |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06437 [131 AD3d 482] |
| August 5, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Dawkins, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and JodiL. Mandel of counsel; Gregory Musso on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the SupremeCourt, Kings County (Donnelly, J.), imposed November 8, 2013, upon his conviction ofattempted murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty.
Ordered that the sentence is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to theSupreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
In People v Rudolph(21 NY3d 497, 499 [2013]), the Court of Appeals held that compliance with CPL720.20 (1), which provides that the sentencing court "must" determine whether aneligible defendant is to be treated as a youthful offender, "cannot be dispensed with, evenwhere defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported towaive his or her right to make such a request." Compliance with CPL 720.20 (1) requiresthe sentencing court to actually consider and make an independent determination ofwhether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment (see People v Stevens, 127AD3d 791 [2015]; People vOjomo, 126 AD3d 1011 [2015]; People v Evans, 126 AD3d 721 [2015]; People v Calkins, 119 AD3d975, 976 [2014]; see alsoPeople v Then, 121 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2014]; People v Pacheco, 110 AD3d927 [2013]).
Here, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court considered whether toadjudicate the defendant a youthful offender. Therefore, we vacate the defendant'ssentence, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencingafter a determination of whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offendertreatment (see People vRamirez, 115 AD3d 992 [2014]). We express no opinion as to whether theSupreme Court should afford youthful offender treatment to the defendant. Rivera, J.P.,Dickerson, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.