Opinion
10-11-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Matthew J. MACKSON, appellant.
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Bridget R. Steller of counsel), for respondent.
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Bridget R. Steller of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered October 7, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims his plea of guilty was involuntary because he pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would be afforded youthful offender treatment, and thereafter was denied youthful offender treatment. Since the defendant did not object to the denial of youthful offender treatment, or move for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty, his claim that he pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would be afforded youthful offender treatment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Cameron, 107 A.D.3d 733, 965 N.Y.S.2d 889 ; People v. Symons, 262 A.D.2d 872, 692 N.Y.S.2d 530 ). In any event, the plea minutes indicate that no such promise was made. Moreover, the defendant was convicted of an armed felony (see CPL 1.20[41] ). Therefore, he was only eligible for youthful offender treatment if there were "mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed" or where the defendant's participation in the crime was "relatively minor" ( CPL 720.10[3] ; see People v. Keith, 144 A.D.3d 705, 39 N.Y.S.3d 808 ). The County Court properly concluded that the circumstances did not satisfy those criteria.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
CHAMBERS, J.P., MILLER, HINDS–RADIX and DUFFY, JJ., concur.