Opinion
463 KA 16–00638
04-27-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ray A. QUINONES, Defendant–Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, robbery in the first degree ( Penal Law § 160.15[3] ). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status. "The decision ‘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. Williams, 204 A.D.2d 1002, 1002, 614 N.Y.S.2d 954 [4th Dept. 1994], lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 973, 616 N.Y.S.2d 26, 639 N.E.2d 766 [1994] ). In light of, among other things, the serious and premeditated nature of the crimes, as well as the preplea investigation report recommending that defendant not be adjudicated a youthful offender, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request. We decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender (see People v. Mills, 151 A.D.3d 1744, 1745, 57 N.Y.S.3d 298 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1131, 64 N.Y.S.3d 681, 86 N.E.3d 573 [2017] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.