PEOPLE v. PRINGLE (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]), two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [1] [b]; [3]), reckless endangerment in the first degree (§ 120.25), and assault in the second degree (§ 120.05 [2]). Defendant's conviction stems from his conduct in firing gunshots at a person inside a motor vehicle. The victim sustained gunshot wounds to his lower right back and upper right leg.

We reject defendant's contention that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. The oral colloquy, together with the written waiver, “was sufficient to support a knowing and voluntary waiver under the totality of the circumstances” (People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 564, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]; see People v. Drake, 195 A.D.3d 1442, 1442, 145 N.Y.S.3d 461 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 991, 152 N.Y.S.3d 408, 174 N.E.3d 348 [2021], reconsideration denied 37 N.Y.3d 1059, 154 N.Y.S.3d 632, 176 N.E.3d 668 [2021]).

Defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to adjudicate him a youthful offender. Although ordinarily a valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses appellate review of a sentencing court's discretionary decision to deny youthful offender status (see People v. Pacherille, 25 N.Y.3d 1021, 1023-1024, 10 N.Y.S.3d 178, 32 N.E.3d 393 [2015]), defendant expressly reserved his right to challenge that determination on appeal.

Inasmuch as defendant was convicted of armed felony offenses, “the court was required to make a threshold determination whether defendant was an eligible youth pursuant to CPL 720.10 (3) before considering the range of factors pertinent to a youthful offender determination” (People v. Glover, 239 A.D.3d 1459, 1461, 239 N.Y.S.3d 399 [4th Dept. 2025], lv denied 44 N.Y.3d 982, 241 N.Y.S.3d 142, 267 N.E.3d 1211 [2025]). A youth convicted of an armed felony offense is an eligible youth “if the court determines that one or more of the following factors exist: (i) mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed; or (ii) where the defendant was not the sole participant in the crime, the defendant's participation was relatively minor although not so minor as to constitute a defense to the prosecution” (CPL 720.10 [3]). Here, defendant was the sole participant in the crime, and we agree with the court that there were no mitigating circumstances bearing directly on the manner in which the crime was committed (see People v. Rivera, 202 A.D.3d 1480, 1481, 161 N.Y.S.3d 668 [4th Dept. 2022], affd 41 N.Y.3d 936, 206 N.Y.S.3d 521, 230 N.E.3d 443 [2023]; People v. Blackshear, 208 A.D.3d 1635, 1636, 174 N.Y.S.3d 657 [4th Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 961, 179 N.Y.S.3d 156, 200 N.E.3d 101 [2022]). Contrary to defendant's contention, his “background ․ and drug habit do not pertain to [his] direct manner in the commission of the crime” (People v. Garcia, 84 N.Y.2d 336, 342, 618 N.Y.S.2d 621, 642 N.E.2d 1077 [1994]; see People v. Marshall, 214 A.D.3d 1360, 1361, 185 N.Y.S.3d 457 [4th Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 929, 192 N.Y.S.3d 520, 213 N.E.3d 662 [2023]).

The valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006]).