People v. Then

Oct 22, 2014
2013-00780
Versions:121 A.D.3d 1025
994 N.Y.S.2d 420

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, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The defendant contends that the sentencing court failed to determine whether he should be treated as a youthful offender pursuant to CPL 720.20 (1). Contrary to the People‘s contention, the sentencing court failed to adequately place on the record, its reasons for denying the defendant youthful offender status (see People v Pacheco, 110 AD3d 927 [2013]; People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 491 [2006]; People v Martinez, 301 AD2d 615, 616 [2003]). Therefore, the defendant‘s sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing after determining whether the defendant should be sentenced as a youthful offender. We express no opinion as to whether the Supreme Court should afford youthful offender status to the defendant.

The defendant‘s remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination (see People v Pacheco, 110 AD3d at 927). Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Hinds-Radix, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.