Court Opinion

ID: 4093029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-10-27 03:39:08.697748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:28.011026
License: Public Domain

People v Henry (2016 NY Slip Op 07035)

People v Henry

2016 NY Slip Op 07035

Decided on October 26, 2016

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 26, 2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.
RUTH C. BALKIN
L. PRISCILLA HALL
BETSY BARROS, JJ.

2014-09118
 (Ind. No. 779/12)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vOlurabu Henry, appellant.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY, for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; Robert Ho on the brief), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Murphy, J.), rendered May 30, 2014, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and conspiracy 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.
Criminal Procedure Law § 720.20(1) requires "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). Here, as the People correctly concede, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court considered whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. Accordingly, the defendant'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 should be afforded youthful offender treatment (see People v Youmans, 140 AD3d 1097; People v Eric P., 135 AD3d 882, 883; People v Worrell, 134 AD3d 1137, 1138; People v Ayende, 133 AD3d 771; People v T.E., 131 AD3d 1067, 1068).
ENG, P.J., BALKIN, HALL and BARROS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court