The People, etc., respondent, v. Ismail Lopez, appellant. (2011)

Submitted-November 26, 2010

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), imposed March 11, 2009, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

The record is insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. David S., 78 AD3d 1205;  People v. Shoman, 74 AD3d 843;  People v. Gladden, 267 A.D.2d 400;  People v. Dongo, 244 A.D.2d 353).   Accordingly, the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal does not preclude review of his contention that the Supreme Court should have afforded him youthful offender treatment.   However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender treatment considering, inter alia, the serious nature of the offense he committed, and the otherwise favorable plea agreement (see People v. Huffman, 47 AD3d 646;  People v. Wright, 44 AD3d 692;  People v. Thompson, 16 AD3d 603;  cf.  People v. Cruickshank, 105 A.D.2d 325, affd sub nom.  People v. Dawn Maria C., 67 N.Y.2d 625).

PRUDENTI, P.J., ANGIOLILLO, ENG and ROMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court