Opinion
03-26-2024
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lashar WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Laura Mae Mcfeely of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Conor E. Byrnes of counsel), for respondent.
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Laura Mae Mcfeely of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Conor E. Byrnes of counsel), for respondent.
Webber, J.P., Kern, Kennedy, Higgitt, Michael, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Miriam R. Best, J.), rendered May 31, 2022, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years, followed by two years of postrelease supervision, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing, and otherwise affirmed.
Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see generally People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied 589 U.S. —, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]), which forecloses our review of his request that we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to grant him youthful offender status or, in the alternative, to reduce his term of postrelease supervision (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006]; People v. Wilson, 306 A.D.2d 212, 761 N.Y.S.2d 230 [1st Dept. 2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 646, 769 N.Y.S.2d 213, 801 N.E.2d 434 [2003]). Even if we were to conclude that defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal, we find that youthful offender treatment would not be appropriate, in light of the violent nature of the crimes and his prior youthful offender adjudication in connection with a third-degree assault conviction, and we perceive no basis for reducing the two-year term of postrelease supervision.
Defendant did not ask this Court to vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.
Based on our own interest of justice powers, we vacate the surcharge and fees imposed on defendant at sentencing (see People v. Chirinos, 190 A.D.3d 434, 135 N.Y.S.3d 641 [1st Dept. 2021]). We note that the People do not oppose this relief.