People v. Jaffe, 78 N.Y.2d 65 (1991): Authority to Revoke Youthful Offender Status After Sentencing

People v. Jaffe, 78 N.Y.2d 65 (1991)

Once a court has adjudicated a defendant a youthful offender and the proceeding has terminated with the entry of judgment, the court lacks the inherent power to revoke the youthful offender finding absent fraud or misrepresentation, even if the original sentence was illegal.

Summary

Jaffe pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance, a class B felony, with an agreed-upon sentence recommendation. The trial court initially sentenced him to 2 to 6 years and granted youthful offender status. Realizing this sentence was incompatible with youthful offender status, the court revoked the youthful offender adjudication and reimposed the 2 to 6-year sentence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that absent fraud or misrepresentation, a court cannot revoke a youthful offender finding after judgment, even if the initial sentence was illegal. The proper remedy is to resentence the defendant within the parameters of the youthful offender law.

Facts

Defendant Jaffe pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, a class B felony. A plea agreement stipulated that the prosecution and defense would recommend a sentence of “no more than two to six years” imprisonment. The trial court preliminarily indicated its intent to impose a sentence within that range, subject to a presentence report. After receiving the presentence report, the court sentenced Jaffe to 2 to 6 years and granted him youthful offender status.

Procedural History

The trial court, recognizing that the 2-to-6-year sentence was incompatible with a youthful offender adjudication, reconvened and revoked the youthful offender status before reimposing the original sentence. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the trial court could correct its “illegal” sentence by revoking the youthful offender adjudication. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

  1. Whether a trial court has the authority to revoke a finding that a defendant is a youthful offender after a proceeding has been terminated by the entry of judgment, in order to legitimate a sentence that is impermissible under the youthful offender law.

Holding

  1. No, because absent fraud or misrepresentation, a court lacks the inherent power to revoke a youthful offender finding once the proceeding is terminated by entry of judgment; the proper remedy is to impose a new sentence consistent with the youthful offender finding.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that a youthful offender finding is distinct from the sentence. While courts have inherent power to correct clerical errors or sentences obtained by fraud, this power does not extend to revoking a youthful offender adjudication simply to validate an illegal sentence. The court emphasized that CPL 720.20 requires a court to determine whether an eligible youth is a youthful offender at the time of sentencing. If the court finds the youth is a youthful offender, the conviction is vacated and replaced by the youthful offender finding, and the defendant must be sentenced under Penal Law § 60.02. Quoting Matter of Kisloff v. Covington, the Court stated that it has not recognized a court’s inherent power to vacate a plea and sentence over the defendant’s objection where the error goes beyond mere clerical error and where the proceeding has been terminated by entry of judgment. Because the trial court did not rescind the youthful offender finding due to fraud or misrepresentation, but solely to legitimate the illegal sentence, the revocation was improper. “[T]he proper curative course in the absence of defendant’s consent to do otherwise, was to impose a new sentence consistent as a matter of law with [the youthful offender finding].” The court distinguished this case from situations where a court corrects its own inadvertence in pronouncing sentence or makes a clerical error. Here, the court intentionally adjudicated Jaffe a youthful offender but imposed an impermissible sentence. The appropriate remedy was to resentence Jaffe within the limits prescribed by the youthful offender law, which caps the maximum sentence at four years for a felony conviction.