People v. StokesPeople v. Stokes
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant‘s contention that the sentencing court should have adjudicated him a youthful offender is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to object or to move to withdraw his plea on this ground (see People v Thompson, 16 AD3d 603 [2005]; People v Greene, 13 AD3d 647 [2004]; People v Small, 7 AD3d 819 [2004]). In any event, the defendant was not eligible for youthful offender treatment. Since the defendant was convicted of an armed felony, and was the sole participant in the crime, he could only be adjudicated a youthful offender if “mitigating circumstances” existed “that [bore] directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed” (