PEOPLE v. KIMBLE (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lenora Gerald, J.), rendered April 12, 2018, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed;  as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

“ ‘Criminal Procedure Law § 720.20(1) requires a court to make a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forego it as part of a plea [agreement]’ ” (People v. Carranza, 216 A.D.3d 814, 814, 189 N.Y.S.3d 235, quoting People v. Baldwin, 186 A.D.3d 498, 498, 126 N.Y.S.3d 389;  see People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, 501, 974 N.Y.S.2d 885, 997 N.E.2d 457).  “ ‘Where a defendant is an eligible youth, the determination of whether to afford him or her youthful offender treatment must be explicitly made on the record’ ” (People v. Carranza, 216 A.D.3d at 814, 189 N.Y.S.3d 235, quoting People v. Lockwood, 184 A.D.3d 670, 670, 123 N.Y.S.3d 507).  Here, even though the defendant was an eligible youth, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court made such a determination.  Accordingly, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing after a determination as to whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment (see People v. Belford, 210 A.D.3d 793, 178 N.Y.S.3d 183;  People v. Lockwood, 184 A.D.3d 670, 123 N.Y.S.3d 507).  We express no opinion as to whether the court should afford youthful offender treatment to the defendant.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contention.

BARROS, J.P., MILLER, WARHIT and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.