People v. Dawkins

Aug 5, 2015
2013-10797
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Rivera

Ordered that the sentence is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

In People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497, 499 [2013]), the Court of Appeals held that compliance with CPL 720.20 (1), which provides that the sentencing court “must” determine whether an eligible defendant is to be treated as a youthful offender, “cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request.” Compliance with CPL 720.20 (1) requires the sentencing court to actually consider and make an independent determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment (see People v Stevens, 127 AD3d 791 [2015]; People v Ojomo, 126 AD3d 1011 [2015]; People v Evans, 126 AD3d 721 [2015]; People v Calkins, 119 AD3d 975, 976 [2014]; see also People v Then, 121 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2014]; People v Pacheco, 110 AD3d 927 [2013]).

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court considered whether to adjudicate the defendant a youthful offender. Therefore, we vacate the defendant‘s sentence, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing after a determination of whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment (see People v Ramirez, 115 AD3d 992 [2014]). We express no opinion as to whether the Supreme Court should afford youthful offender treatment to the defendant. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.