CRAWFORD, JR., ROBERT A., PEOPLE v ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    763
    KA 08-01130
    PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, FAHEY, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    ROBERT A. CRAWFORD, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (WILLIAM PIXLEY OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NICOLE M. FANTIGROSSI
    OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A.
    Keenan, J.), rendered February 21, 2008. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled
    substance in the fifth degree.
    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 criminal sale of a controlled substance in
    the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31). Because defendant did not
    contend at the time of sentencing that he was entitled to an
    adjudication of his youthful offender status, he waived his present
    contention that County Court erred in failing to state on the record
    at sentencing whether he was eligible for such status (see People v
    McGowen, 42 NY2d 905, rearg denied 42 NY2d 1015; People v Cunningham,
    238 AD2d 350, lv denied 90 NY2d 857; see generally CPL 720.20 [1]).
    In addition, defendant failed to preserve for our review his
    contention that the court’s failure to adjudicate him a youthful
    offender constitutes an abuse of discretion “inasmuch as he failed to
    seek that status either at the time of the plea proceedings or at
    sentencing” (People v Fowler, 28 AD3d 1183, 1184, lv denied 7 NY3d
    788), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention
    as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15
    [6] [a]). We also decline to grant defendant’s request to exercise
    our interest of justice jurisdiction to afford him such status (see
    People v Jock, 68 AD3d 1816, lv denied 14 NY3d 801).
    Entered:   June 10, 2011                           Patricia L. Morgan
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 08-01130

Filed Date: 6/10/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016