Attorneys and Parties

The People of the State of New York
Respondent

Kyhree Page
Defendant-Appellant
Attorneys: Jenay Nurse Guilford, David J. Klem

Brief Summary

Issue

Criminal law—appellate modification of mandatory surcharges and fees imposed at sentencing for youthful defendants.

Lower Court Held

The trial court accepted guilty pleas to two counts of third-degree robbery and imposed consecutive sentences, including surcharges and fees on both indictments.

What Was Overturned

The Appellate Division vacated the surcharge and fees imposed on Indictment No. 75273/22; all other aspects of the judgments were affirmed.

Why

Exercising its interest-of-justice authority and consistent with People v. Chirinos, the court granted unopposed relief because the offense under Indictment No. 75273/22 occurred when the defendant was under 21; similar relief was denied for Indictment No. 73610/23 because that offense occurred when the defendant was over 21.

Background

Defendant Kyhree Page pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery in the third degree arising from two separate indictments (Nos. 75273/22 and 73610/23). He was sentenced to consecutive terms: a 6-month jail term on one conviction and a split sentence of 6 months in jail and 5 years of probation on the other. The sentencing court imposed mandatory surcharges and fees on both convictions.

Lower Court Decision

Supreme Court, New York County, imposed surcharges and fees at sentencing on both indictments and entered judgments of conviction consistent with the negotiated sentences.

Appellate Division Reversal

The Appellate Division unanimously modified the judgments to vacate the surcharge and fees on Indictment No. 75273/22, relying on its interest-of-justice powers and noting the People did not oppose this relief. It declined similar relief for Indictment No. 73610/23 because the defendant was over 21 when that offense was committed. The judgments were otherwise affirmed.

Legal Significance

Confirms the Appellate Division, First Department’s willingness to use its interest-of-justice power, consistent with People v. Chirinos, to vacate surcharges and fees where the offense occurred when the defendant was under 21, while maintaining such financial obligations for offenses committed when the defendant is older than 21.

🔑 Key Takeaway

In the First Department, surcharges and fees may be vacated in the interest of justice for offenses committed when a defendant was under 21, but not for offenses committed when the defendant was over 21; underlying convictions and sentences otherwise remain intact.