PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ (2025)

Order, the Supreme Court, New York County (Miriam R. Best, J.), entered on or about October 4, 2023, which denied defendant's CPL 440.20 motion to set aside his sentence, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a youthful offender determination.

As the People concede, defendant's claim under People v. Middlebrooks, 25 N.Y.3d 516, 14 N.Y.S.3d 296, 35 N.E.3d 464 (2015) and People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, 501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 (2013) is cognizable in a CPL 440.20 motion to set aside his sentence (see People v. C.D.C., 235 A.D.3d 505, 506, 228 N.Y.S.3d 49 [1st Dept. 2025]), as the remedy for a Middlebrooks or Rudolph error is vacatur of the sentence and resentencing for express youthful offender determinations (see Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d at 502–503, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457;  People v. R.B., 227 A.D.3d 420, 420–421, 208 N.Y.S.3d 202 [1st Dept. 2024]).

Furthermore, defendant is entitled to resentencing under Middlebrooks, as he was a youth convicted of at least one armed felony offense (see CPL 720.10[1] and [2];  CPL 1.20[41]), and the sentencing court failed to make the requisite on-the-record determination of defendant's status as an eligible youth, with reference to the factors enumerated in CPL 720.10(3)(see Middlebrooks, 25 N.Y.3d at 527, 14 N.Y.S.3d 296, 35 N.E.3d 464).  At resentencing, if the court determines on the record, in the exercise of its discretion, that the CPL 720.10(3) factors do not exist and that defendant therefore is not an eligible youth, no further determination is required (C.D.C., 235 A.D.3d at 506, 228 N.Y.S.3d 49).  However, if the court determines that defendant is an eligible youth based on the presence of one or more of those factors, the court must exercise its discretion a second time to determine whether the eligible youth should be granted youthful offender treatment (see Middlebrooks, 25 N.Y.3d at 525, 14 N.Y.S.3d 296, 35 N.E.3d 464;  C.D.C., 235 A.D.3d at 506, 228 N.Y.S.3d 49).  Although it is apparent that the court did not believe a youthful offender adjudication was warranted, defendant is nevertheless entitled to an “explicit determination on the record” (People v. Basono, 122 A.D.3d 553, 553, 997 N.Y.S.2d 415 [1st Dept. 2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1069, 12 N.Y.S.3d 620, 34 N.E.3d 371 [2015];  see also People v. Banister, 158 A.D.3d 569, 570, 68 N.Y.S.3d 878 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1078, 79 N.Y.S.3d 99, 103 N.E.3d 1246 [2018]).