People v. Jaswane M.

2025 NY Slip Op 00405 · Appellate Division, First Department · January 28, 2025 · No. Ind. No. 387/18 Appeal No. 3584 Case No. 2019-3465

Summary

This Appellate Division, First Department decision addresses a direct appeal by a defendant convicted of attempted robbery in the second degree. The court modified the trial court's judgment by vacating the three-year sentence and remanding the case for a youthful offender determination, noting that the trial court failed to explicitly consider mitigating circumstances or state its reasoning on the record as required by law. The remainder of the conviction was affirmed.

Court
Appellate Division, First Department
Writing for the Court
Webber, J.P.; Friedman; Scarpulla; Rosado; O'Neill Levy
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
January 28, 2025
Docket number
Ind. No. 387/18 Appeal No. 3584 Case No. 2019-3465
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County judgment convicting appellant of attempted robbery in the second degree and vacating the sentence pending youthful offender determination.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Jaswane M. v. People of the State of New York
Disposition
remanded

Topics

sentencingappellate procedurecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the appellate court must remand for a youthful offender determination because the lower court failed to make the determination on the record.

Holdings

  1. The court held that the lower court's failure to make an explicit youthful offender determination on the record requires remand for such a determination.

Key quotations

As an "eligible youth," defendant is entitled to resentencing pursuant to People v Rudolph ( 21 NY3d 497 [2013]) for a youthful offender determination on his conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree. Although the court adjudicated defendant a youthful offender on another charge, under an indictment that is not part of this appeal, for which he was sentenced in the same proceeding, the court did not state if it had considered whether, under the instant indictment, mitigating circumstances existed to warrant youthful offender treatment or set forth its reasoning on the record (see CPL 720.10[3]). As the People concede, the court's failure to make that determination explicitly on the record requires a remand (see Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497; People v Banister, 158 AD3d 569, 570 [1st Dept 2018]; see also People v J.G., 225 AD3d 64 [2024]). (at 1)

Factual background

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the second degree and was sentenced to three years. He is an eligible youth entitled to a youthful offender determination under CPL 720.10(3). The lower court vacated the sentence and remanded for that determination but did not explain its reasoning on the record.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, Bronx County entered judgment on February 19, 2019, convicting the defendant, sentencing him to three years, and later vacating the sentence and remanding for a youthful offender determination. The Appellate Division reviewed the lower court's failure to address the youthful offender issue on the record.

Remand instructions

Remand for a youthful offender determination pursuant to People v. Rudolph.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…