| People v Youmans |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04970 [140 AD3d 1097] |
| June 22, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shamel Youmans, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Erica Horwitz of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove andSholom J. Twersky of counsel; Gregory Musso on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Gubbay, J.), rendered March 4, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the third degree,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed;as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the SupremeCourt, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Criminal Procedure Law § 720.20 (1) requires "that there be a youthfuloffender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where thedefendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain" (People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d497, 501 [2013]; see Peoplev Ayende, 133 AD3d 771, 771 [2015]). Here, as the People correctly concede,the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court considered whether thedefendant should be afforded youthful offender status. Under these circumstances, thedefendant's sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court,Kings County, for resentencing after a determination as to whether the defendant shouldbe afforded youthful offender treatment (see People v Ayende, 133 AD3d at 771;People v T.E., 131 AD3d1067, 1068 [2015]; Peoplev Stevens, 127 AD3d 791, 792 [2015]; People v Ojomo, 126 AD3d 1011, 1011 [2015]). Weexpress no opinion as to whether the Supreme Court should afford youthful offendertreatment to the defendant. Rivera, J.P., Roman, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.