Opinion
106511
2015-05-28
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony T. GREEN, Appellant.
McCarthy, J.P., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.
Abbie Goldbas, Utica, for appellant. Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), for respondent.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., LYNCH, DEVINE and CLARK, JJ.
CLARK, J.
Appeals from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered August 2, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts).
Defendant was charged in two indictments with robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (four counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree and petit larceny (three counts). He thereafter pleaded guilty as charged. County Court denied defendant's application for youthful offender status, but vacated his guilty plea to all the charges except burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts) and sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of nine years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that County Court abused its discretion in denying his application for youthful offender status. “[T]he determination to grant youthful offender treatment rests within the discretion of the sentencing court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion” ( People v. Driggs, 24 A.D.3d 888, 889, 804 N.Y.S.2d 703 [2005]; accord People v. Fernandez, 106 A.D.3d 1281, 1286, 968 N.Y.S.2d 603 [2013]; seeCPL 720.20[1][a] ). Here, given the gravity of the crimes, which included a home invasion with an accomplice, during which a victim was struck in the head with the butt of a BB gun, defendant's criminal history and the negative recommendation of the Probation Department, we cannot say that County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant youthful offender status ( see People v. Carter, 60 A.D.3d 1103, 1107, 875 N.Y.S.2d 303 [2009], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 924, 884 N.Y.S.2d 705, 912 N.E.2d 1086 [2009]; People v. Anderson, 48 A.D.3d 896, 898, 851 N.Y.S.2d 680 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 859, 860 N.Y.S.2d 485, 890 N.E.2d 248 [2008] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.