Court Opinion

ID: 2744728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-22 20:16:47.096811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:10:47.482009
License: Public Domain

People v Then (2014 NY Slip Op 07192)

People v Then

2014 NY Slip Op 07192

Decided on October 22, 2014

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 22, 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

2013-00780
 (Ind. No. 6346/11)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vJonathan Then, appellant.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Heidi Bota of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Anthea H. Bruffee of counsel; Gregory Musso on the brief), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Murphy, J.), rendered December 19, 2012, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The defendant contends that the sentencing court failed to determine whether he should be treated as a youthful offender pursuant to CPL 720.20(1). Contrary to the People's contention, the sentencing court failed to adequately place on the record its reasons for denying the defendant youthful offender status (see People v Pacheco, 110 AD3d 927; People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 491; People v Martinez, 301 AD2d 615, 616). Therefore, the defendant's sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing after determining whether the defendant should be sentenced as a youthful offender. We express no opinion as to whether the Supreme Court should afford youthful offender status to the defendant.
The defendant's remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination (see People v Pacheco, 110 AD3d at 927).
SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HINDS-RADIX, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court