| People v Minemier |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 09747 [134 AD3d 1551] |
| December 31, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vKevin M. Minemier, Appellant. |
Easton Thompson Kasperek Shiffrin, LLP, Rochester (Donald M. Thompson ofcounsel), for defendant-appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Leah R. Mervine of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Victoria M. Argento, J.),rendered January 20, 2012. The appeal was held by this Court by order entered January2, 2015, decision was reserved and the matter was remitted to Monroe County Court forfurther proceedings (124 AD3d 1408 [2015]). The proceedings were held andcompleted.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea ofguilty of one count of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law§§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]), two counts of assault in the first degree(§ 120.10 [1], [4]), and one count of assault in the second degree(§ 120.05 [4]). The crimes were committed by defendant when he was 18years old, and his conduct involved attempting to kill a woman by repeatedly stabbingher in the face, head, and eye, causing wounds that required more than 100 stitches toclose. Defendant also stabbed a man who attempted to stop the attack on the woman.Consistent with the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant to concurrentdeterminate terms of imprisonment, the three longest of which are terms of 20 years, plusfive years of postrelease supervision.
On a prior appeal, we concluded that the court failed to determine whether defendantshould be adjudicated a youthful offender (see People v Minemier, 124 AD3d1408, 1408 [2015]). We therefore remitted the matter to County Court " 'to makeand state for the record a determination whether defendant should be granted youthfuloffender status' " (id. at 1408, quoting People v Potter, 114 AD3d1183, 1184 [2014]). Inasmuch as the record further indicated that the court hadreviewed at sentencing written statements that were not disclosed to defendant, we alsodirected the court "to make a record of what statements it reviewed and to state itsreasons for refusing to disclose them to defendant" (id. at 1409). Upon remittal,the court expressly denied defendant's request for youthful offender treatment. Withrespect to the undisclosed statements it reviewed at sentencing, the court stated that itreviewed the last page of the presentence investigation report, which was markedconfidential, and that the information contained therein was provided to the probationdepartment "on the promise of confidentiality."
Defendant now contends that the court erred in failing to state its reasons for notadjudicating him a youthful offender. We reject that contention. Although CPL 720.20(1) requires the sentencing court to determine on the record whether an eligible youth is ayouthful offender (see People vRudolph, 21 NY3d 497, 499 [2013]), the statute does not require the court tostate its reasons for denying youthful offender status to the defendant. To the extent thatPeople v Lee (79 AD3d1641, 1641 [2010]) and other cases from this Court hold otherwise, they should notbe followed. Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that the courtsufficiently complied with our prior decision by identifying what statements it reviewedat sentencing, and that defendant was not entitled to disclosure of any confidentialinformation (see CPL 390.50 [2]; People v Perry, 36 NY2d 114, 120[1975]; Matter of Shader v People, 233 AD2d 717, 717 [1996]).
[*2] Finally, based on our review of the record and therelevant factors, we conclude that the court's refusal to adjudicate defendant a youthfuloffender was not an abuse of discretion (see People v Mix, 111 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2013]), and wedecline to grant defendant's request to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction toadjudicate him a youthful offender (see People v Facen, 67 AD3d 1478, 1479 [2009], lvdenied 14 NY3d 800 [2010], reconsideration denied 15 NY3d 749 [2010];cf. People v Shrubsall, 167 AD2d 929, 930-931 [1990]).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that none warrantreversal or modification of the judgment. Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindleyand Whalen, JJ.