PEOPLE v. JOHNSON (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew J. D'Emic, J.), imposed July 20, 2021, upon his conviction of attempted assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, after remittitur from this Court for resentencing (see People v. Johnson, 193 A.D.3d 1076, 143 N.Y.S.3d 222).

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

“ ‘The determination of whether to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case’ ” (People v. Green, 205 A.D.3d 1051, 1052, 166 N.Y.S.3d 892, quoting People v. Hesterbey, 121 A.D.3d 1127, 1128, 994 N.Y.S.2d 421;  see People v. Lormil, 149 A.D.3d 1101, 50 N.Y.S.3d 888).  “In making such a determination, factors to be considered by the court include the gravity of the crime and manner in which it was committed, mitigating circumstances, defendant's prior criminal record, prior acts of violence, recommendations in the presentence reports, defendant's reputation, the level of cooperation with authorities, defendant's attitude toward society and respect for the law, and the prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life” (People v. Sutton, 184 A.D.3d 236, 246, 125 N.Y.S.3d 739 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status (see CPL 720.20[1];  People v. Beyjones, 186 A.D.3d 848, 127 N.Y.S.3d 766;  People v. Jearel, 175 A.D.3d 565, 566–567, 104 N.Y.S.3d 894;  People v. Newman, 174 A.D.3d 651, 101 N.Y.S.3d 894).

The resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

DILLON, J.P., MILLER, DOWLING and WAN, JJ., concur.