Court Opinion

ID: 5967031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 07:21:27.170352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:21.130996
License: Public Domain

It is hereby ordered that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Steuben County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sexual act in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.45 [1]) and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted rape in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 130.30 [1]). In both appeals, defendant contends, inter alia, that County Court abused its discretion in failing to adjudicate him a youthful offender. Defendant, an apparently eligible youth (see CPL 720.10 [2]), pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain that provided, among other things, that he would be sentenced to concurrent terms of probation if he successfully completed a period of interim probation, but would be sentenced to a term of incarceration in state prison with a term of postrelease supervision if he did not. Defendant was released on his own recognizance, subject to the terms of the interim probation. The court subsequently determined, after a hearing, that defendant had violated the terms of his interim probation and sentenced him to a term of incarceration in state prison, without determining whether defendant would be granted youthful offender status.
“Upon conviction of an eligible youth, the court must order a [presentence] investigation of the defendant. After receipt of a written report of the investigation and at the time of pronouncing sentence the court must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender” (CPL 720.20 [1]). The Court of Appeals has concluded that, by the use of the word *1064“must,” the legislature has made “a policy choice that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” (People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497, 501 [2013]). “[W]e cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the . . . [issue] as a denial thereof” (People v Spratley, 96 AD3d 1420, 1421 [2012], following remittal 103 AD3d 1211 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1020 [2013]; see People v Ingram, 18 NY3d 948, 949 [2012]; People v Chattley, 89 AD3d 1557, 1558 [2011]). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to make and state for the record “a determination of whether defendant is a youthful offender” (Rudolph, 21 NY3d at 503).
All concur except Whalen, J., who dissents and votes to affirm in the following memorandum.