Opinion
2016-12651 Ind. No. 3243/16
08-21-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Kareem GARCIA, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Sean H. Murray of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Andrew S. Durham of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Sean H. Murray of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Andrew S. Durham of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER 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 in accordance herewith.
The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes us from reviewing his contention that the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress certain statements he made to law enforcement officials and physical evidence (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ; People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 ).
However, the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to consider youthful offender treatment is not precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Taylor, 163 A.D.3d 726, 76 N.Y.S.3d 840 ; People v. Ramirez, 115 A.D.3d 992, 993, 983 N.Y.S.2d 57 ). As the People correctly concede, the court erred in failing to consider whether the defendant, who was 18 years old when he committed the offense, should be afforded youthful offender status (see CPL 720.20[1] ; People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ; People v. Alleyne, 169 A.D.3d 710, 91 N.Y.S.3d 702 ; People v. Stevens, 127 A.D.3d 791, 791–792, 4 N.Y.S.3d 546 ). Under these circumstances, we vacate the defendant's sentence and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment. We express no opinion as to whether the court should afford youthful offender treatment to the defendant.
RIVERA, J.P., COHEN, LASALLE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.