People v. Carranza

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, held that the defendant's guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, but vacated the sentence because the trial court did not explicitly determine whether he should receive youthful offender treatment. The matter was remitted for resentencing and reconsideration of mandatory surcharges and fees.

Holdings

1. Defendant's contention that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent was unpreserved because he did not move to withdraw the plea or otherwise raise the issue before the Supreme Court, and the narrow exception to the preservation rule did not apply.
2. In any event, defendant's guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.
3. A court must make an explicit youthful-offender determination on the record in every case in which the defendant is eligible, even if the defendant does not request youthful-offender treatment or agrees to waive it as part of a plea bargain.
4. Upon determining defendant's youthful-offender status and resentencing him, the Supreme Court must reconsider the imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendant's challenge to the knowing, voluntary, and intelligent nature of his guilty plea was preserved for appellate review.
2. Whether the guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent notwithstanding defendant's claim to the contrary.
3. Whether the trial court was required to make an explicit youthful-offender determination because defendant was an eligible youth.
4. Whether the sentence had to be vacated and the matter remitted for a youthful-offender determination and resentencing.
5. Whether mandatory surcharges and fees had to be reconsidered after the youthful-offender determination and resentencing.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded