STATE OF NEW YORK. ( SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY P\ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, -against- DECISION AND ORDER Index No.: DA 384-11 IND/SCI #3-3696 JAH-LAH VANDERHORST, Defendant. APPEARANCES For the People HONORABLE P. DAVID SOARES DAVID ROSSSI, ESQ. Albany County District Attorney JONATHAN CATANIA, ESQ. Albany County Judicial Center Assistant District Attorney (s) Albany, New York 12207 For the Defendant THOMAS GABRIELS, ESQ. 11 North Pearl Street, suite 1506 Albany, New York 12207 LYNCH, J. By Decision and Order dated June 20, 2019, this Court modified the judgment of conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree, in violation of Penal Law section § 125.20 (1), on the law, by vacating the sentence, and rescheduled sentencing thereon’ ‘T UPDATE On August 8, 2012, Defendant was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of 25 years, plus 5-years post-release supervision. As aforementioned, the conviction date remained 1 On June 28, 2019, the parties appeared on the record. The Court seta written submission filing date of July 17, aintact, but the sentence vacated, Accordingly, upon re-sentencing, this Court is not required to order an updated pre-sentence report in accord with CPL 390.20 (see People v. Kuey, 83 N.Y.2d 278 [1994]; People v. Robinson, 154 A.D. 3d 1334 [4" Dept. 2017]; People v. Whitmore, 125 A.D. 3d 1055 [3d Dept. 2015]; People v. Williams, 114 A.D. 3d 993 (3d Dept. 2014); People v. Quinlan, 193 A.D, 2d 564 [1% Dept. 1993]; c.f. People v. Jarvis, 170 A.D. 3d 1622 [4% Dept. 2019), where a 17-year-old defendant was convicted of Manslaughter in the First Degree, the court held an updated report was required due to a new conviction date), It is manifest, however, that defendant’s conduct during his continuous incarceration is highly relevant to this de novo sentencing proceeding (see People v. Kuey, supra, at 282-283; People v. Robinson, supra. at 1336; People v. Whitmore, supra., at 1056; People v. Williams, supra at 994: People v. Quinlan, supra. at 564). Accordingly, on June 28, 2019, this Court ordered an updated pre-sentencing report (hereinafter PSI) PRE-SENTENCE REPORT The updated Pre-Sentencing Report (PSI) was issued July 16, 2019. In preparing the update, the Probation Officer (hereinafter “Officer”) incorporated the 2012 report, interviewed defendant, included written statements submitted by the victim’s family members [Stacey Rhodes (Victim’s Mother), Kim Sawyer (Victim’s Aunt), Denise Rhodes (Victim’s Sister), and Tal Sofer (Victim’s Grandparent)] in the report, interviewed Jim Donohue, Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator at Attica Maximum Correctional to obtain information about the defendant's conduct, including misbehavior reports, while imprisoned, and interviewed defendant's mother, Cathy Brown. The Officer opined that the maximum sentence (25 years plus 5-years post release supervision) is appropriate. 2019 and heard oral argument on July 19, 2019. poeSENTENCING PROCEEDING On July 19, 2019, the Court conducted a sentencing proceeding. The Court incorporated all the documents listed below as part of the sentencing proceeding The People’s request to allow four (4) family members [Stacey Rhodes (Victim's Mother), Kim Sawyer (Victim’s Aunt), Denise Rhodes (Victim’s Sister), and Tal Sofer (Victim's Grandparent)] to speak on behalf of the victim was granted (CPL 380.50 [2]; see also People v.. Hemmings, 2N.Y. 3d 1 [2004]). On July 19, 2019, only Stacey Rhodes spoke on behalf of the victim. This Court had the benefit of listening to her statements, as well as having read and considered the letters incorporated into the PSI. It is manifest they have suffered a grievous loss of their loved one. They all recommended defendant be resentenced to the maximum sentence of 25 years with 5 years post release supervision. Defendant also spoke at the proceeding. The Court observed Defendant express true remorse and sorrow for his actions. He also spoke about his youth at the time of the crime and desire for a second chance to become a productive member of society. Defendant seeks a youthful offender determination. The People recommend that youthful offender status be denied, and that defendant be re- sentenced, once again, to a 25-year determinate term of imprisonment followed by 5-years post release supervision, ‘The Court reserved decision pending the issuance of the subject Decision and Order. YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ‘The first determination to be made is whether the defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender in accord with CPL Article 720. It is undisputed that defendant was 16 years 3