Opinion
109201
07-11-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Chino ROSADO, Appellant.
Jeffrey L. Zimring, Albany, for appellant. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Jonathan P. Catania of counsel), for respondent.
Jeffrey L. Zimring, Albany, for appellant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Jonathan P. Catania of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Devine and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Garry, P.J.
In October 2016, defendant was charged by indictment with one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree after a quantity of cocaine was discovered in his backpack. Other charges, including drug-related offenses, were also pending against defendant in connection with two other separate arrests. In satisfaction of the indictment and the other pending charges, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, waived his right to appeal, and reserved his right to request youthful offender status. Prior to sentencing, defendant filed an affirmation in support of youthful offender adjudication. At sentencing, Supreme Court denied defendant's request for youthful offender status and sentenced him pursuant to the plea agreement to one year in jail. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that Supreme Court erred in denying him youthful offender status. Review of the record reveals that the court first determined defendant's eligibility for youthful offender treatment, and thereafter engaged in a lengthy and detailed discussion with counsel regarding the relevant factors guiding the discretionary determination (see generally People v. Cruickshank , 105 A.D.2d 325, 334, 484 N.Y.S.2d 328 [1985], affd sub nom. People v. Dawn Maria C. , 67 N.Y.2d 625, 499 N.Y.S.2d 663, 490 N.E.2d 530 [1986] ). Significantly, although the parties did not address this issue, the detailed plea colloquy demonstrates that defendant's oral and written appeal waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v. McCall , 146 A.D.3d 1156, 1157, 44 N.Y.S.3d 795 [2017], lvs denied 29 N.Y.3d 1033, 1034, 62 N.Y.S.3d 302, 84 N.E.3d 974 [2017] ; People v. Macon , 142 A.D.3d 739, 739, 36 N.Y.S.3d 752 [2016], lvs denied 28 N.Y.3d 1073, 1075, 47 N.Y.S.3d 232, 234, 69 N.E.3d 1028, 1030 [2016]). As there was no "failure to consider youthful offender treatment," defendant's challenge is precluded by his valid waiver of the right to appeal ( People v. Pacherille , 25 N.Y.3d 1021, 1023, 10 N.Y.S.3d 178, 32 N.E.3d 393 [2015] [emphasis omitted]; see CPL 720.10[2] ; 720.20[1]; People v. Rudolph , 21 N.Y.3d 497, 499, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 [2013] ).
Egan Jr., Clark, Devine and Pritzker, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.