Opinion
595 KA 16-02269
08-20-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jhon POLANCO, Defendant-Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BENJAMIN L. NELSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BENJAMIN L. NELSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree ( Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15[3] ). We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in failing to determine whether he should be afforded youthful offender status (see People v. Rudolph , 21 N.Y.3d 497, 501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 [2013] ; People v. Lester , 155 A.D.3d 1579, 1579, 65 N.Y.S.3d 614 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1206, 99 N.Y.S.3d 219, 122 N.E.3d 1132 [2019] ). As the People correctly concede, defendant is an eligible youth, and a sentencing court must make "a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it" ( Rudolph , 21 N.Y.3d at 501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 ; see People v. Willis , 161 A.D.3d 1584, 1584, 77 N.Y.S.3d 259 [4th Dept. 2018] ). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to make and state for the record a determination whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status (see People v. Singleton-Pradia , 170 A.D.3d 1520, 1520-1521, 94 N.Y.S.3d 523 [4th Dept. 2019] ).