People v. Glasgow
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Glasgow
2026 NY Slip Op 04321
July 8, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Lashajuan Glasgow, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 8, 2026
2023-10140, (Ind. No. 71031/21)
Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.
Janice A. Taylor
Lourdes M. Ventura
Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.
Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Rebecca D. Martin of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jane Tully, J.), rendered October 11, 2023, convicting him of 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 and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, (1) by vacating the sentence imposed, and (2) by vacating the imposition of a mandatory surcharge and fees; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
CPL 720.20(1) provides, in relevant part, that, upon the conviction of an eligible youth, "at the time of pronouncing sentence the court must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender." Compliance with this statutory mandate requires that the sentencing court actually consider and make a determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment, "even where [the] 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" (People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497, 499; see People v Hall, 160 AD3d 896, 896).
Here, the Supreme Court was required to determine on the record whether the defendant, whose conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree constituted an armed felony (see CPL 1.20[41]; Penal Law §§ 70.02[1][b]; 265.03[3]), was an "eligible youth" (CPL 720.10[2][a][ii]) by considering whether the factors set forth in CPL 720.10(3) were present and, if so, whether he should be afforded youthful offender status (see People v Middlebrooks, 25 NY3d 516, 519; People v Hunter, 203 AD3d 752, 753; People v Shelton, 202 AD3d 1001, 1002). As the People correctly concede, the record does not demonstrate that the court made that determination. Accordingly, the defendant's sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment and, thereupon, resentencing. We express no opinion as to whether the court should afford youthful offender treatment to the defendant.
"Criminal Procedure Law § 420.35(2-a) permits the waiver of surcharges and fees for individuals, like the defendant, who were less than 21 years old at the time of the subject crime" [*2](People v Cabrera, 222 AD3d 878, 879). Pursuant to the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, and as consented to by the People, we modify the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed upon the defendant at sentencing (see CPL 420.35[2-a][c]; People v Dillon H., 229 AD3d 722, 723; People v Johnson, 193 AD3d 1076).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contention.
CONNOLLY, J.P., TAYLOR, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Glasgow (People v. Glasgow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.