People v. Smith, Rodney
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law — youthful offender determination and sentencing; waiver of mandatory surcharges and fees.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, accepted Rodney Smith’s guilty plea to third-degree robbery and imposed sentence and mandatory surcharges/fees without making a youthful offender determination.
The sentence and the imposition of the mandatory surcharge and fees were vacated; the conviction was otherwise affirmed.
Under CPL 720.20 [requiring a youthful offender determination in every eligible case], the court had to make a youthful offender determination, which the record did not show. The People conceded this error. Additionally, as consented to by the People, the surcharge and fees were vacated pursuant to CPL 420.35(2-a) [statute permitting waiver of mandatory surcharge and certain fees in specified circumstances].
Background
Rodney Smith pleaded guilty to robbery in the third degree in the Supreme Court, Kings County, and was sentenced. The record did not reflect that the court made a youthful offender determination despite Smith’s eligibility. Smith appealed, challenging the sentence as excessive and raising issues concerning orders of protection issued at sentencing.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County (Eugene M. Guarino, J.), rendered judgment on November 29, 2023, convicting Smith on his guilty plea to third-degree robbery, imposing sentence, and assessing mandatory surcharges and fees. The court did not place on the record any youthful offender determination.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the judgment by vacating the sentence and the imposition of the mandatory surcharge and fees, and remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing after making a youthful offender determination under CPL 720.20. The court affirmed the judgment as modified. In light of the remittal for resentencing, Smith’s excessive sentence argument was deemed academic. Challenges to the orders of protection were unpreserved, and the court declined to review them in the interest of justice. The surcharge and fees were vacated with the People’s consent pursuant to CPL 420.35(2-a).
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that trial courts must make a youthful offender determination in every eligible case regardless of request or waiver (People v. Rudolph). Failure to do so requires vacatur of the sentence and remittal for proper consideration. Also illustrates that mandatory surcharges and fees may be vacated under CPL 420.35(2-a) with the People’s consent, and that unpreserved challenges to orders of protection will generally not be reviewed on appeal.
If a defendant is eligible for youthful offender treatment, the court must make that determination on the record; omission compels vacatur of the sentence and remand for resentencing. Mandatory surcharges and fees can be vacated under CPL 420.35(2-a), and excessive sentence claims become academic when resentencing is ordered.