From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Then

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 22, 2014
121 A.D.3d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2013-00780, Ind. No. 6346/11.

10-22-2014

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jonathan THEN, appellant.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Heidi Bota of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Anthea H. Bruffee of counsel; Gregory Musso on the brief), for respondent.


Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Heidi Bota of counsel), for appellant.

Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Anthea H. Bruffee of counsel; Gregory Musso on the brief), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.

Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Murphy, J.), rendered December 19, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The defendant contends that the sentencing court failed to determine whether he should be treated as a youthful offender pursuant to CPL 720.20(1). Contrary to the People's contention, the sentencing court failed to adequately place on the record its reasons for denying the defendant youthful offender status (see People v. Pacheco, 110 A.D.3d 927, 973 N.Y.S.2d 704 ; People v. Rivera, 27 A.D.3d 491, 810 N.Y.S.2d 334 ; People v. Martinez, 301 A.D.2d 615, 616, 753 N.Y.S.2d 851 ). Therefore, the defendant's sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing after determining whether the defendant should be sentenced as a youthful offender. We express no opinion as to whether the Supreme Court should afford youthful offender status to the defendant.

The defendant's remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination (see People v. Pacheco, 110 A.D.3d at 927, 973 N.Y.S.2d 704 ).


Summaries of

People v. Then

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 22, 2014
121 A.D.3d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

People v. Then

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jonathan THEN, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 22, 2014

Citations

121 A.D.3d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
994 N.Y.S.2d 420
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 7192

Citing Cases

People v. Mead

The parties are correct that the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court considered whether to…

People v. Mead

The parties are correct that the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court considered whether to…