People v. Carranza, 2023 NY Slip Op 02535 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Carranza, 2023 NY Slip Op 02535 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2025–2026 · …criminal procedure law 720.20(1) requires a court to make a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forego it as part of a plea bargain at p. 814 ✓
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Thompson (nyappdiv, 2026-06-24)
Treatment trajectory · 2023 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2023 2024 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thompson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
"Criminal Procedure Law § 720.20(1) requires a court to make a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forego it as part of a plea bargain" ( People v Carranza , 216 AD3d 814, 814 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Rudolph , 21 NY3d 497, 501 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Steele
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Similarly, where a defendant successfully challenges a sentencing court's failure to determine whether he or she should be afforded youthful offender treatment prior to imposing sentence on direct appeal, this Court has consistently only vacated the defendant's sentence and remitted the matter to the sentencing court "for resentencing after a determination as to whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment " ( People v Carranza , 216 AD3d at 815 [emphasis added]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Suckoo (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the defendant's sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing after a determination as to whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment ( see id. ; People v Carranza , 216 AD3d at 815).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Kimble
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith. "'Criminal Procedure Law § 720.20(1) requires a court to make a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forego it as part of a plea [agreement]'" ( People v Carranza , 216 AD3d 814, 814 , quoting People v Baldwin , 186 AD3d 498, 498 ; see People v Rudolph , 21 NY3d…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · signal: accord · confidence high
People v Rudolph ( 21 NY3d 497 [2013]), which was decided before defendant was sentenced and the ensuing appellate process was completed, requires the sentencing court to make "a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain" ( id. at 501 ; accord People v Carranza , 216 AD3d 814, 814 [2d Dept 2023]; see People v Middlebrooks , 25 NY3d 516, 527 [2015]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · signal: accord · confidence high
People v Rudolph ( 21 NY3d 497 [2013]), which was decided before defendant was sentenced and the ensuing appellate process was completed, requires the sentencing court to make "a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain" ( id. at 501 ; accord People v Carranza , 216 AD3d 814, 814 [2d Dept 2023]; see People v Middlebrooks , 25 NY3d 516, 527 [2015]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
People
v.
Carranza
Ind. No. 1366/19.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 10, 2023.
2023 NY Slip Op 02535
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
People v Carranza (2023 NY Slip Op 02535)
People v Carranza
2023 NY Slip Op 02535
Decided on May 10, 2023
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on May 10, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
LARA J. GENOVESI
WILLIAM G. FORD
JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.

2021-02604
(Ind. No. 1366/19)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Jonathan Gutierrez Carranza, appellant.




Jillian S. Harrington, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Daniel Bresnahan and Tammy J. Smiley of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Helene F. Gugerty, J.), rendered March 10, 2021, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the Supreme Court (see People v Pray, 183 AD3d 842, 842; People v Coleman, 138 AD3d 1014, 1015; People v Catts, 26 AD3d 341, 341), and the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable in this case (see People v Patel, 74 AD3d 1098, 1099). In any event, the defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.

"Criminal Procedure Law § 720.20(1) requires a court to make a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forego it as part of a plea bargain" (People v Baldwin, 186 AD3d 498, 498; see People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497, 501). "Where a defendant is an eligible youth, the determination of whether to afford him or her youthful offender treatment must be explicitly made on the record" (People v Lockwood, 184 AD3d 670, 670). Here, even though the defendant was an eligible youth, the record does not demonstrate that the Supreme Court made such a determination. Accordingly, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for resentencing after a determination as to whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment (see People v Belford, 210 AD3d 793; People v Downing, 200 AD3d 704; People v Slide, 197 AD3d 1184; People v Baldwin, 186 AD3d 498; People v Lockwood, 184 AD3d 670; People v Lessane, 169 AD3d 827). We express no opinion as to whether the court should afford youthful offender treatment to the defendant.

Further, upon determination of the defendant's youthful offender status and resentencing, the Supreme Court must reconsider the imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees [*2](see People v Dyshawn B., 196 AD3d 638, 641).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

DILLON, J.P., GENOVESI, FORD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court