PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ (2019)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum:  On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10[1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to determine whether he should be afforded youthful offender status.  We agree.  Because defendant was convicted of an armed felony offense (see CPL 1.20[41] ), he is ineligible for a youthful offender adjudication unless the court determines that one of two mitigating factors is present (see CPL 720.10[2][a][ii];  [3] ).  If the court, in its discretion, determines that neither of the CPL 720.10(3) factors is present and states the reasons for that determination on the record, then no further determination is required (see People v. Middlebrooks, 25 N.Y.3d 516, 527, 14 N.Y.S.3d 296, 35 N.E.3d 464 [2015];  People v. Dukes, 147 A.D.3d 1534, 1535, 47 N.Y.S.3d 567 [4th Dept. 2017] ).  If, on the other hand, the court determines that one or more of those factors are present, and therefore defendant is an eligible youth, the court then must determine whether he is a youthful offender (see Middlebrooks, 25 N.Y.3d at 527, 14 N.Y.S.3d 296, 35 N.E.3d 464;  Dukes, 147 A.D.3d at 1535, 47 N.Y.S.3d 567).  Here, the court failed to follow the procedure set forth in Middlebrooks.  We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court “to make and state for the record ‘a determination of whether defendant is a youthful offender’ ” (People v. Wilson, 151 A.D.3d 1836, 1837, 58 N.Y.S.3d 775 [4th Dept. 2017], quoting People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, 503, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457 [2013] ).