Opinion
11-09-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Curtis N. HENDERSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Piotr Banasiak of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, AND NEMOYER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree ( Penal Law § 125.20[1] ). We previously held the case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter for Supreme Court to make and state for the record a determination whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status ( People v. Henderson, 145 A.D.3d 1554, 1555, 46 N.Y.S.3d 321 [4th Dept.2016] ; see generally People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, 499–501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 [2013] ). Upon remittal, the court determined that affording defendant youthful offender status would not serve the interest of justice (see CPL 720.20[1][a] ). We conclude that the court did not thereby abuse its discretion, particularly in view of the gravity of the crime, in which defendant fired several gunshots at the victim's vehicle and killed the victim (see People v. Mohawk, 142 A.D.3d 1370, 1371, 38 N.Y.S.3d 469 [4th Dept.2016] ; People v. Gibson, 134 A.D.3d 1517, 1518–1519, 21 N.Y.S.3d 905 [4th Dept.2015], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1069, 38 N.Y.S.3d 839, 60 N.E.3d 1205 [2016] ; see also People v. Wills, 144 A.D.3d 952, 952–953, 41 N.Y.S.3d 542 [2d Dept.2016] ). In addition, upon our review of the record, we decline to exercise our discretion in the interest of justice to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender (see Mohawk, 142 A.D.3d at 1371, 38 N.Y.S.3d 469; cf. People v. Thomas R.O., 136 A.D.3d 1400, 1402–1403, 25 N.Y.S.3d 766 [4th Dept.2016] ). Finally, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.