The People v. Lashajuan Glasgow
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal sentencing and youthful offender treatment for an eligible youth convicted of an armed felony, along with waiver of mandatory surcharges and fees for a defendant under age 21.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, accepted the defendant's guilty plea to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and imposed sentence, including a mandatory surcharge and fees, without making an on-the-record youthful offender determination.
The Appellate Division vacated the sentence and vacated the imposition of the mandatory surcharge and fees, while otherwise affirming the judgment of conviction.
Under CPL 720.20(1) [upon conviction of an eligible youth, at sentencing the court must determine whether the youth is a youthful offender], the sentencing court was required to make an on-the-record determination whether the defendant should receive youthful offender treatment. The record showed no such determination. The court also exercised its interest-of-justice jurisdiction to vacate surcharges and fees under CPL 420.35(2-a) [permits waiver of surcharges and fees for individuals less than 21 years old at the time of the crime].
Background
Lashajuan Glasgow pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under an indictment in Kings County. Because that offense constituted an armed felony, the sentencing court was required to determine whether he was an eligible youth by considering the factors in CPL 720.10(3) [factors relevant to whether a youth convicted of an armed felony is an eligible youth] and, if eligible, whether to grant youthful offender treatment. The defendant was also under 21 years old at the time of the offense.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, convicted the defendant upon his guilty plea and imposed sentence on October 11, 2023, including a mandatory surcharge and fees. The court did not make a clear on-the-record youthful offender determination.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the judgment by vacating the sentence and vacating the mandatory surcharge and fees, affirmed the judgment as modified, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment and for resentencing thereafter. The appellate court expressly stated that it expressed no opinion on whether youthful offender treatment should be granted.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a sentencing court must independently comply with CPL 720.20(1), even if a defendant does not request youthful offender treatment or purports to waive it. For youths convicted of armed felonies, the court must analyze eligibility under CPL 720.10(2)(a)(ii) [defines certain armed-felony defendants as eligible youths if statutory conditions are met] and CPL 720.10(3). The case also confirms that appellate courts may vacate mandatory surcharges and fees for defendants under 21 pursuant to CPL 420.35(2-a).
When sentencing a qualifying young defendant, the court must make an explicit youthful offender determination on the record; failure to do so requires vacatur of the sentence and remittal for proper consideration and resentencing.