People v. Blanton

2020 NY Slip Op 156, 113 N.Y.S.3d 563, 179 A.D.3d 715

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 8, 2020
• Docket: 2018-04450
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Blanton (2020 NY Slip Op 00156)

People v Blanton

2020 NY Slip Op 00156

Decided on January 8, 2020

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 8, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

2018-04450

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Taishawn Blanton, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 189/18)

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (De Nice Powell of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Jie Gao of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ushir Pandit-Durant, J.), rendered February 27, 2018, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

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, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

CPL 720.20(1) requires "that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain" (People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497, 501). Here, as the People concede, even though the defendant was an eligible youth, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court considered and determined whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender status (see People v Alleyne, 169 AD3d 710, 711; People v Foster, 162 AD3d 790; People v Mead, 159 AD3d 1040, 1041). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine whether the defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender, and for resentencing thereafter (see People v Alleyne, 169 AD3d at 711; People v Foster, 162 AD3d at 790; People v Mead, 159 AD3d at 1041).

MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court