Court Filings

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed defendant Mauro Vivar's conviction for attempted assault in the second degree, vacated his guilty plea, and remitted the case for further proceedings. The court found Vivar's appellate-waiver invalid because the trial court failed to explain appellate rights separately from rights lost by pleading guilty and relied only on defense counsel to confirm the written waiver. The court also held the suppression court should have granted Vivar's motion to suppress custodial statements to the arresting officer, and that that error was not harmless because the statements could have affected his decision to plead.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction and sentence of Stephanie Rodriguez. Rodriguez appealed a June 22, 2022 judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County. After oral argument and consideration, the appellate court found the sentence was not excessive and therefore upheld the trial court's judgment. The opinion is a brief affirmance without extended written opinion and refers defense counsel to the court's procedural rule § 606.5.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Luis Mendez’s convictions for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and third-degree burglary and his concurrent sentences. The court held Mendez validly waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his suppression challenge, and alternatively found the trial court correctly denied suppression. The court accepted credibility findings and concluded police lawfully approached based on an intelligence report about a trend of firearms in fanny packs, observed a street-crossing violation, and legitimately pursued Mendez when he fled, making the abandonment of the fanny pack and the discovery of the gun lawful.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Michael T. Jackson's conviction and sentence after a guilty plea for criminal possession of a firearm, rejecting his challenges. The court held Jackson validly waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his excessive-sentence and most probation-condition claims. A facial challenge to the statute's "good moral character" licensing provision survives waiver and Jackson has standing, but the claim was unpreserved and not reviewed in the interest of justice; alternatively the court found it meritless. Ineffective-assistance claims based on counsel's failure to raise that argument must be pursued in a CPL 440.10 motion and were otherwise rejected on the record.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Bronx County Supreme Court judgment entered December 17, 2024, in the criminal case against Joshua Brooks. The appeal challenged the sentence, but the appellate court, after argument and deliberation, found the sentence not excessive and affirmed. The decision is brief and focuses solely on the review of the sentence; no change to the conviction or sentence was ordered. Counsel for the appellant was referred to the court's Rule 606.5.

The Appellate Division, Third Department reversed County Court's denial of defendant Cendno Rahaman's CPL 440.10 motion and granted relief in the interest of justice. Rahaman argued his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to object to empaneling an anonymous jury. The court found the sworn allegations and counsel's affidavit showed a legal basis that could not be summarily rejected as successive, and that empaneling an anonymous jury without a factual predicate can deny a fair trial. The matter is remitted to County Court for a new trial.

The Appellate Division reversed a County Court order that denied defendant Shannon Dickinson's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction, and remitted the matter to a different County Court judge for further proceedings. The court concluded that the judge who decided the 440 motion had a law clerk who previously worked as an assistant prosecutor on the underlying case and that the clerk's potential prior involvement — combined with the failure to disclose or insulate the clerk — created an appearance of impropriety. Because the record does not show the clerk's role on the motion, the court found reversal and reassignment appropriate in the interest of justice.

The Appellate Division affirmed defendant Eugene Cobbins' November 30, 2023 conviction following a guilty plea to multiple charges, holding that his custodial statements were knowingly and voluntarily made and not subject to suppression. The court rejected his challenge that delayed filing of charges created a right-to-counsel issue because that right had not yet attached and any statutory-arraignment delay claim was unpreserved. However, the court reversed the February 9, 2024 resentencing on two grand larceny convictions because Cobbins was not produced and there is no indication he knew of or waived his right to be present, and remitted the matter for resentencing on those counts.

The Appellate Division (Second Department) reviewed the People’s appeal from a Supreme Court order that, after a hearing and reargument, vacated Omarny Williams’s 2017 guilty plea judgment and set aside his sentence. The appellate court reversed the grant to vacate the plea because the plea record showed Williams told the court he was a U.S. citizen, and thus the court’s failure to warn about immigration consequences could be reviewed on direct appeal and was untimely raised. The court affirmed that the sentence must be set aside because the sentencing court failed to properly determine Williams’s eligibility for youthful offender treatment and remitted the case for resentencing.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender after he pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and imposing sentence. The defendant argued that the youthful-offender adjudication violated his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights, but the appellate court found those constitutional claims unpreserved for review and declined to decide them in the interest of justice. Consequently, the lower court's judgment was affirmed without addressing the merits of the constitutional challenges.

The Appellate Division reviewed a County Court order that had designated Joshua Stewart a level three sexually violent offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act after his New Jersey conviction for promoting child prostitution. The court upheld the risk-point scoring and refused a downward departure, finding the Guidelines had adequately considered mitigating factors. However, the panel held that applying Correction Law § 168-a(3)(b) to label him a "sexually violent offender" was unconstitutional as applied because the underlying New Jersey offense would not qualify as a sexually violent offense under New York law. The court therefore modified the designation to "level three sex offender" and affirmed as modified.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Jaquan Oden’s conviction for disorderly conduct under Penal Law § 240.20(3) after a jury trial. Oden was acquitted of a separate disorderly conduct count under § 240.20(6) that alleged failure to disperse. The court rejected arguments that the conviction was legally insufficient or against the weight of the evidence because the disputed dispersal order was an element only of the acquitted charge, not the conviction. The court also found defense counsel effective and upheld the denial of a mistrial, concluding the prosecutor’s improper remark was cured by immediate instructions to the jury.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a County Court order designating Daniel Morrison a level three sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Morrison, convicted after jury trial of first‑degree sexual abuse and two counts of second‑degree murder, argued for a lower risk level based on mitigating factors. The court held the argument was unpreserved because he did not request a downward departure at the SORA hearing, and in any event he failed to meet the legal standard for a downward departure from the presumptive level three classification.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the County Court conviction and sentence of Daryl K. Miller for attempted sexual abuse in the first degree after Miller pleaded guilty. The court found Miller knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and that valid waiver bars review of his claim that the sentence was excessive. Because the appeal waiver was valid, the appellate panel declined to review the sentencing challenge and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the County Court.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the sentence imposed on Mario Lazu after his guilty plea. The defendant appealed only on the ground that the sentence was excessive, but the court concluded he had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal. Because the appeal waiver was valid, the court found it could not consider the challenge to the sentence and therefore affirmed the lower court's June 27, 2023 sentence.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed defendant Andrew Jointe’s challenge to his sentence following guilty pleas to third-degree rape and attempted sex trafficking of a child. The court found the 10-year period of postrelease supervision imposed for the attempted sex trafficking conviction was illegal and reduced it to five years. As modified, the concurrent determinate prison terms of 3.5 years and the remaining 10-year postrelease supervision on the rape conviction were affirmed. The court stated it may correct an illegal sentence even if the issue was not raised below.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Clyde Johnson’s convictions for three counts of forcible touching and one count of third-degree sexual abuse after a jury trial. The court found the defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence unpreserved but, in any event, held the evidence sufficient and the verdict not against the weight of the evidence. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct were rejected. The court also concluded the time period alleged in the forcible touching counts gave the defendant fair notice to prepare a defense.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the sentence imposed on Tyshaun Holloway after his guilty plea. Holloway challenged the sentence as excessive, but the court held that he had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and that valid waiver bars appellate review of his excessiveness claim. Because the waiver was valid, the court declined to consider the merits of the sentencing claim and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, Kings County.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Lucious Griffin’s convictions following a jury trial for multiple drug and paraphernalia offenses and his sentence. Griffin argued the indictment should be dismissed for violation of his statutory speedy-trial rights because the People’s initial certificate of compliance (COC) omitted certain discovery (including a prisoner movement log and pole camera footage). The court held the initial COC was valid because the People exercised due diligence, promptly disclosed the missing log once discovered, and the defense sought no lesser remedy than dismissal. Several other claims were deemed unpreserved for appeal.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed defendant Darrel Greenlee’s appeal challenging the excessiveness of a nine-year determinate sentence (plus five years postrelease supervision) imposed after his guilty plea to first-degree assault. The court exercised its discretion in the interest of justice and reduced the prison term to seven years while leaving the five-year period of postrelease supervision intact. The court cited sentencing excessiveness principles and People v Suitte in concluding the original nine-year term was greater than warranted and therefore modified the sentence accordingly.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Kwauhuru Govan’s convictions for second-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping following a jury trial. The court held the evidence was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence, rejected constitutional and prosecutorial-misconduct claims as unpreserved or without merit, and found the defendant received effective assistance of counsel. The court relied on the criminalist’s testimony as independent analysis and declined to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations, thus affirming the trial court’s judgment and sentence.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a February 16, 2024 sentence imposed on Darius Drummond following his guilty plea. Drummond challenged the sentence as excessive, but the court held his appellate waiver was valid and therefore bars review of the sentencing claim. Relying on controlling precedent, the court concluded the waiver foreclosed his appeal and affirmed the judgment without reaching the merits of the excessiveness argument.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Nelson DeJesus's convictions for two counts of attempted first-degree assault and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon following a jury trial and sentence. The court rejected the defendant's confrontation-clause challenge to admission of two DNA laboratory files and testimony because the testifying analyst generated and analyzed the relevant DNA profiles. The court also found trial counsel was not ineffective and declined to review other unpreserved issues in the interest of justice.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed four Supreme Court, Kings County judgments convicting Johnnie Corbett after his guilty pleas to various felonies and imposing sentences. The court held Corbett knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his claim that the sentences were excessive and most ineffective-assistance claims. Corbett's challenge that his pleas were unknowing survived the waiver but was unpreserved and without merit based on the plea allocutions and record. The court therefore affirmed all four judgments.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Angel Berrios's conviction following his guilty plea to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, Kings County. The court rejected Berrios's challenge to the denial of his suppression motion because he had validly waived his right to appeal; that waiver bars appellate review of the suppression ruling. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the judgment without reaching the merits of the suppression claim.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Khalil Wisdom's conviction after a jury trial for two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the concurrent 12-year sentences imposed as a second violent felony offender. The court also affirmed the denial of his CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment alleging ineffective assistance and newly discovered evidence. The court concluded counsel provided effective representation under state and federal standards, any alleged failures did not prejudice defendant given overwhelming video and other evidence, and the trial court properly declined various jury instructions and a new-evidence hearing.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Yordani Urena’s conviction following a guilty plea to second-degree assault and the three-year probation sentence, but modified the probation by striking fees and mandatory surcharge. The court declined to review an unpreserved facial constitutional challenge to a probation condition restricting association and places, and alternatively rejected the challenge on the merits. The court found the association/frequenting condition reasonably necessary given the violent nature of the offense, but concluded that imposing court fees and the mandatory surcharge was not related to rehabilitation and therefore removed that condition.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed defendant Julsean Thompson’s conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to first-degree custodial interference. The court unanimously modified the trial court’s judgment by reducing Thompson’s term of imprisonment from two-to-four years to 1 1/3-to-3 years as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, finding the original sentence excessive. In all other respects the judgment was affirmed, leaving the conviction and other components of the trial court’s decision intact.

The Appellate Division, First Department modified a Bronx County judgment that had convicted Angel Rivas, upon a guilty plea, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentenced him to five years probation. The court struck six specific probation conditions because they were not reasonably related to Rivas's rehabilitation or necessary to ensure he would lead a law-abiding life. The court reasoned there was no evidence supporting dependence-support, gang affiliation, substance abuse, mental-health treatment, or ignition-interlock requirements, and the People did not oppose removing several of the conditions.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Bronx County Supreme Court's June 14, 2021 judgment in People v. Gonzalez. Carlos Gonzalez appealed his conviction and sentence; the appellate panel reviewed the arguments, found the sentence was not excessive, and unanimously affirmed the trial court judgment. The court provided no extended opinion or new legal rule, simply announcing affirmation and referring appellant's counsel to the court's rule § 606.5 regarding appellate practice matters.