Opinion
1144 KA 17-00128
06-11-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Brendyn J. SINGLETON-PRADIA, Also Known as Brendyn Singleton, Defendant-Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree ( Penal Law § 220.16 [1] ) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (§ 220.09 [1]). We previously held the case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court to make and state for the record a determination whether to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender ( People v. Singleton-Pradia , 170 A.D.3d 1520, 1521, 94 N.Y.S.3d 523 [4th Dept. 2019] ), inasmuch as such a determination is required "even where the defendant ... agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain" ( People v. Rudolph , 21 N.Y.3d 497, 501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 [2013] ). Upon remittal, the court declined to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender. Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying him youthful offender status ( see People v. McCall , 177 A.D.3d 1395, 1396, 112 N.Y.S.3d 846 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1130, 118 N.Y.S.3d 509, 141 N.E.3d 465 [2020] ), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender ( see id. ; cf. People v. Keith B.J. , 158 A.D.3d 1160, 1161, 70 N.Y.S.3d 291 [4th Dept. 2018] ).