PEOPLE v. MEDLEY (2008)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10[2][b] ).  We agree with defendant that his “waiver of the right to appeal is invalid inasmuch as [Supreme Court's] minimal inquiry was insufficient ․ to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v. Hamilton, 49 A.D.3d 1163, 1164, 856 N.Y.S.2d 375 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see People v. Ortiz, 46 A.D.3d 1409, 848 N.Y.S.2d 474, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 769, 854 N.Y.S.2d 331, 883 N.E.2d 1266).   Thus, the contention of defendant that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status is properly before us (see People v. McClellan, 49 A.D.3d 1201, 856 N.Y.S.2d 350).   Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant is eligible for youthful offender status, we nevertheless conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request (see People v. Wilson, 306 A.D.2d 212, 761 N.Y.S.2d 230, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 646, 769 N.Y.S.2d 213, 801 N.E.2d 434).

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

MEMORANDUM: