Monroe County homicide case sent back for youthful offender ruling

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has sent a case back to the lower court to determine whether the defendant qualifies for youthful offender status.

Defendant Deshequan L. Nathan was convicted of first-degree manslaughter in September 2008 in state Supreme Court before Justice Joseph D. Valentino.

The conviction stemmed from a street fight in 2007, when Nathan was 16, involving a group of teenagers and young adults where a shot was fired from Nathan’s gun, killing a 16-year-old victim.

The prosecution presented evidence at trial that, during the altercation, Nathan intentionally aimed the gun at the victim and shot him.

Nathan did not deny that his gun discharged and struck the victim, but he presented evidence that the gun accidentally fired while he was using it as a club to protect one of his friends.

At trial, Nathan claimed that his use of physical force was justified in defense of a third person.

In a previous appeal, the Fourth Department affirmed the conviction. Subsequently, the court granted a defense motion for a writ of error coram nobis on the ground that appellate counsel’s representation was not constitutionally adequate.

In the latest ruling, the Fourth Department reserved its decision and sent the case back to the Supreme Court.

The court ruled that meaningful representation required that, in the aftermath of People v Rudolph, a 2013 Court of Appeals decision, which was decided during the pendency of the prior appeal, appellate counsel should file a motion in the Fourth Department to raise the argument that Rudolph required that the sentence must be vacated and the case should be remitted to decide if Nathan qualified for youthful offender status.

“We conclude that the Supreme Court erred in failing to determine whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status,” the panel wrote.

Under Criminal Procedure Law Section 720.20 (1), the sentencing court must 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, the court wrote.

“Inasmuch as defendant is otherwise eligible for youthful offender status on this conviction, the court was obligated to make a discretionary youthful offender determination before imposing sentence,” the court wrote.

“We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to make and state for the record a determination whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status,” the court wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035