Opinion
2021-06294
11-12-2021
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. SIMEON J. MCDANIELS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, TROUTMAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered April 26, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant upon a plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (two counts).
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 two counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1], [2] [a]). We decline to grant defendant's request that we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate him a youthful offender. Considering the "broad range of factors pertinent to any youthful offender determination" (People v Middlebrooks, 25 N.Y.3d 516, 527 [2015]; see People v Cruickshank, 105 A.D.2d 325, 334 [3d Dept 1985], affd 67 N.Y.2d 625 [1986]), we conclude that defendant should not be afforded youthful offender status under the circumstances of this case. Defendant participated in an admittedly violent crime, he received a prior youthful offender adjudication, he violated the terms of the plea agreement here, and the presentence report did not recommend youthful offender status (see People v Abdul-Jaleel, 142 A.D.3d 1296, 1298-1299 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 946 [2017]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the period of postrelease supervision is not unduly harsh or severe.