Opinion
2016-07693, Ind. No. 1772/11.
04-26-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Shanice LORMIL, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Angad Singh of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Angad Singh of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Simpson, J.), imposed July 20, 2016, upon remittitur from this Court for resentencing (see People v. Lormil, 134 A.D.3d 958, 22 N.Y.S.3d 494 ), upon her conviction of gang assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict.
ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.
" ‘The determination of whether to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case’ " (People v. Mullings, 83 A.D.3d 871, 872, 921 N.Y.S.2d 152, quoting People v. Ortega, 114 A.D.2d 912, 912, 495 N.Y.S.2d 82 ; see People v. Dawkins, 146 A.D.3d 898, 44 N.Y.S.3d 770 ). Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status (see CPL 720.20[1] ; People v. Dawkins, 146 A.D.3d at 898, 44 N.Y.S.3d 770; People v. Green, 110 A.D.3d 825, 826, 973 N.Y.S.2d 679 ; People v. Barrett, 105 A.D.3d 862, 864, 962 N.Y.S.2d 673 ; People v. Santiago, 101 A.D.3d 1155, 955 N.Y.S.2d 886 ). Further, the resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, LaSALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.