People v McDaniels
2021 NY Slip Op 06294 [199 AD3d 1403]
November 12, 2021
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, December 29, 2021


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Simeon J. McDaniels, Appellant.

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Janet C. Somes of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Lisa Gray of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered April 26, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant upon a plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1], [2] [a]). We decline to grant defendant's request that we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate him a youthful offender. Considering the "broad range of factors pertinent to any youthful offender determination" (People v Middlebrooks, 25 NY3d 516, 527 [2015]; see People v Cruickshank, 105 AD2d 325, 334 [3d Dept 1985], affd 67 NY2d 625 [1986]), we conclude that defendant should not be afforded youthful offender status under the circumstances of this case. Defendant participated in an admittedly violent crime, he received a prior youthful offender adjudication, he violated the terms of the plea agreement here, and the presentence report did not recommend youthful offender status (see People v Abdul-Jaleel, 142 AD3d 1296, 1298-1299 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 946 [2017]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the period of postrelease supervision is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Troutman, Winslow and DeJoseph, JJ.