The People of the State of New York v. M.O.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law — sentencing; requirement to determine youthful offender (YO) status on the record; appellate authority to vacate mandatory surcharges and fees in the interest of justice.
Supreme Court, Bronx County accepted defendant’s guilty pleas to hindering prosecution in the second degree (Ind. No. 1554/19) and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Ind. No. 241/21), imposed sentences of one year and a concurrent two-year term, and assessed the mandatory surcharge, DNA fee, and crime victim assistance fee (CVAF), without making an on-the-record YO determination on Ind. No. 1554/19.
The sentence on Indictment No. 1554/19 was vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing; the mandatory surcharge, DNA fee, and CVAF on Indictment No. 241/21 were vacated.
The trial court failed to determine YO status on the record (see People v D.B.), and the Appellate Division exercised its interest-of-justice discretion to vacate the surcharge and fees (see People v Chirinos), with no opposition from the People.
Background
Defendant M.O. pleaded guilty under two indictments: hindering prosecution in the second degree (Ind. No. 1554/19) and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Ind. No. 241/21). On October 5, 2021, the Supreme Court, Bronx County, sentenced him to one year in jail on the hindering prosecution case and a concurrent two-year prison term on the weapon case, and imposed the mandatory surcharge, DNA fee, and crime victim assistance fee (CVAF).
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alvin Yearwood, J.) entered judgments of conviction on both indictments upon guilty pleas, imposed the above sentences and monetary assessments, and did not make an explicit, on-the-record determination regarding youthful offender (YO) treatment for Ind. No. 1554/19.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified both judgments. For Ind. No. 1554/19, it vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the court failed to determine YO status on the record. For Ind. No. 241/21, it vacated the mandatory surcharge, DNA fee, and CVAF in the interest of justice, noting the People did not oppose. The judgments were otherwise affirmed.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that sentencing courts must expressly consider and determine youthful offender (YO) status on the record. It also affirms the Appellate Division’s authority to vacate mandatory surcharges and fees in the interest of justice, consistent with People v Chirinos, particularly where the People do not oppose such relief.
A sentencing court’s failure to make an on-the-record YO determination requires vacatur of the sentence and resentencing, and appellate courts may vacate mandatory surcharges and fees in the interest of justice.