| People v Hall |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 02648 [160 AD3d 896] |
| April 18, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ray Hall, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Meredith S. Holt of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan ofcounsel; Masha Simonova on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Betty J.Williams, J.), rendered October 27, 2016, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree,upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as somodified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, KingsCounty, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
CPL 720.20 (1) provides, in relevant part, that upon the conviction of an eligible youth, "atthe time of pronouncing sentence the court must determine whether or not the eligible youth is ayouthful offender." Compliance with this statutory mandate requires that the sentencing courtactually consider and make a determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthfuloffender treatment, "even where [the] defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthfuloffender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request" (People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497,499 [2013]; see People v Thomas,157 AD3d 723 [2018]; People vT.E., 131 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2015]; People v Dawkins, 131 AD3d 482, 483 [2015]).
Here, as the People correctly concede, the defendant, who pleaded guilty to attempted assaultin the first degree by means of a dangerous instrument, was a youth eligible to be found ayouthful offender (see CPL 720.10 [1], [2]), and the record does not demonstrate that theSupreme Court considered and determined whether the defendant should be afforded youthfuloffender status. Accordingly, the defendant's sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted tothe Supreme [*2]Court, Kings County, for a determination ofwhether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment, and, thereupon,resentencing (see People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d at 503; People v Thomas, 157 AD3d 723 [2018]; People v Watson, 154 AD3d 976[2017]; People v Henry, 143 AD3d1001 [2016]; People vYoumans, 140 AD3d 1097 [2016]; People v Eric P., 135 AD3d 882, 883 [2016]). Mastro, J.P., Cohen,Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.