Court Filings

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Monroe County Court order that classified Anthony Colbert as a level three risk under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. The court reviewed the county court's refusal to grant a downward departure from the presumptive risk level and found no abuse of discretion. Applying the three-step departure analysis and weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, the court concluded the totality of circumstances did not justify lowering Colbert's presumptive risk level, relying on precedent including People v Gillotti.

The Appellate Division affirmed defendant Theodore E. Coffie’s conviction for first-degree reckless endangerment arising from nine shots fired toward a street outside a house. The court dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging sentence and rejected Coffie’s claims that the evidence was insufficient, that grand jury and jury-note procedures were flawed, that prosecutorial misconduct occurred, and that trial counsel was ineffective. The court found the girlfriend’s identification, the parked vehicle with a passenger during the shooting, and a recovered bullet near the scene provided a valid basis for the jury’s verdict and that any preserved errors did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Trevor E. Clarke's convictions for multiple sexual offenses but reduced his aggregate prison exposure. The court rejected Clarke's argument that the guilty verdicts were against the weight of the evidence, finding credibility determinations for the jury. It declined to review an unpreserved constitutional claim about excluded defense questioning. The court found the original aggregate sentence of 52 years to life unduly harsh and, in the interest of justice, ordered two specified counts to run concurrently, reducing the aggregate sentence to 37 years to life while otherwise affirming the judgment.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed the conviction of Frank Bredt for two counts of second-degree murder arising from evidence that he doused his girlfriend with gasoline and set her on fire. The court rejected claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying substitution of counsel, improperly excluded defense testimony suggesting the victim started the fire, and permitted prosecutorial misconduct or untimely disclosure of trial-created photographs. It held the evidence—largely circumstantial including motive, threatening texts, behavior after the fire, and forensic findings—was legally sufficient and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were denied as speculative or without merit, and the sentence was affirmed as not unduly harsh.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Brian Baxter Jr.'s conviction for second-degree murder. The court rejected Baxter's challenges to the weight of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found eyewitness identification, surveillance showing a person matching Baxter traveling to and from the scene near the time of the shooting, matching descriptions from multiple witnesses, and evidence of a dispute over a defective gun provided sufficient support for the verdict. Preservation rules prevented review of several evidentiary objections, and the court found counsel's performance constitutionally adequate. The sentence was upheld as not unduly harsh.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Joseph D. Ayer’s convictions for second-degree burglary and petit larceny following a jury trial and appeal from a Genesee County conviction. The court held that officers properly initiated and escalated their encounter with defendant based on proximity to the scene and matching description, that defendant voluntarily consented to a search of a lunch box, and that there was sufficient evidence (including codefendant admissions and property possession) to support the convictions. The court also rejected claims of conflict waiver error, ineffective assistance, most prosecutorial misconduct claims, and sentencing excessiveness.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Dvontea Alexander’s convictions (including second-degree murder, two counts of attempted second-degree murder, and several assault and weapons charges) after a jury trial. The court rejected defendant’s challenges to jury selection, the admission of GPS-based video files and certain still images, and claims of prosecutorial misconduct—mostly finding those arguments were either without merit or not preserved for appeal. The court applied established standards for juror impartiality, lay witness identification, and preservation of evidentiary and summation objections in reaching its decision.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed two judgments against Brandon Monegro. The court affirmed a January 18, 2024 conviction (amended April 10, 2024) for second-degree assault and a May 7, 2024 guilty plea conviction for third-degree assault, including the sentences. The court held that disorderly conduct was properly included in the Superior Court Information as a joinable lesser non-inclusory offense related to the same act charged in the felony complaint. Because the earlier conviction was affirmed, the defendant's argument that his later plea should be vacated as dependent on a reversal is moot.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a resentencing judgment that sentenced defendant Marques McGeachy to an aggregate term of 16 years. The court reviewed the trial court's denial of youthful offender treatment and found that, although McGeachy was technically eligible, the sentencing court properly considered the relevant factors and reasonably exercised its discretion to deny youthful offender status. The panel noted McGeachy’s participation with a violent gang, multiple shootings, and violent conduct over months involving multiple victims as reasons supporting the denial and the sentence.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a 2019 Bronx County conviction and sentence of Michael Mable, who pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal possession of a weapon and was sentenced as a second felony offender to 2½ to 5 years. The court declined to review Mable’s claim that his plea was involuntary because he failed to preserve the issue at the plea colloquy and the narrow exception allowing late review did not apply. The court also alternatively held that the record contains no evidence casting doubt on the voluntariness of the plea.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Keyshawn Kitchens' convictions for first- and second-degree assault and the concurrent seven-year sentences. The court found Kitchens failed to preserve statutory speedy trial and prosecutorial-misconduct claims and declined to review them in the interest of justice, but alternatively rejected those claims on the merits. The court also held the evidence was legally sufficient to convict, finding Kitchens the initial aggressor and that the victim was unarmed, with testimony corroborated by surveillance and other witnesses; jury credibility determinations were upheld.

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed a Bronx County Supreme Court order that had found defendant J.P. to presently suffer from a dangerous mental disorder and committed him to a secure psychiatric facility for six months. The court held that although the initial hearing met statutory and due process requirements despite the examining witnesses not testifying, defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to meaningfully challenge the People's examiner reports, secure the examiners' testimony, obtain a defense expert, or present any defense evidence. The matter is remitted for a new CPL 330.20(6) hearing.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Diondre Holman’s conviction following a guilty plea to fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon and his three-year probation sentence, but modified the judgment by striking the probation condition requiring payment of the mandatory surcharge and related fees. The court concluded Holman validly waived his right to appeal, which foreclosed review of his excessiveness challenge, but allowed review of his challenge to the legality of the probation condition and found that requirement unrelated to rehabilitation or public safety. Holman’s facial challenge to the "good moral character" licensing provision was unpreserved and declined in the interest of justice.

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed Supreme Court's order that had dismissed the indictment against defendant Diamond Haggan under CPL 30.30. The People had filed a certificate of compliance for discovery and the court held that the prosecution was not required to obtain third-party employment and medical records as part of initial automatic discovery, so withholding them did not invalidate the certificate. Although the People improperly withheld a victim entity report as duplicative, there was no bad faith and the People had otherwise met their discovery obligations, so the dismissal was improper and the indictment was reinstated for further proceedings.

The Appellate Division, First Department reviewed defendant Yanil Heredia Gomez’s guilty plea and probation sentence for attempted second-degree assault. The court found Gomez validly waived his right to appeal, barring review of his excessive-sentence and certain as-applied constitutional challenges, but it reviewed nonconstitutional challenges to probation conditions. The court modified the sentence by striking several specific probation conditions (including warrantless drug searches, support of dependents, gang-association limits, electronic monitoring, ignition interlock, MTA ban, and cannabis prohibition) as unsupported by the record, and otherwise affirmed the conviction and probation sentence.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Jesse Faulkner's conviction for second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and his sentence of 3½ years plus five years of postrelease supervision. The court rejected Faulkner's unpreserved Second Amendment challenge and declined to review it in the interest of justice. Alternatively, the court held he had standing to bring a facial challenge but failed to show New York's "good moral character" licensing requirement was invalid under Bruen. His ineffective-assistance claim was held unreviewable on direct appeal and, in any event, meritless because the claim had little chance of success.

The First Department affirmed defendant Jamar Carr’s conviction following a guilty plea to fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon and three years of probation, but modified the sentence by striking several probation conditions. The court found Carr validly waived most appellate rights, which barred review of his excessive-sentence and many constitutional claims, but allowed review of a Second Amendment challenge and several statutory challenges to probation conditions. The court rejected the Second Amendment claim and upheld certain conditions as reasonably related to rehabilitation, while striking fees, drug testing/treatment conditions, and a gang-association restriction as unsupported by the record.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the judgment of conviction entered by Supreme Court, Bronx County (Marsha D. Michael, J.) on May 31, 2022. Derwin Blanks appealed his conviction and sentence. After briefing and argument, the appellate court found the sentence imposed was not excessive and therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment in full. The decision is a short, unanimous order without extended opinion, primarily addressing the proportionality of the sentence.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Shawn Batista’s conviction and sentence for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, but exercised its interest-of-justice power to vacate the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing. The court held Batista validly waived his right to appeal, which barred his as-applied constitutional and excessive-sentence claims, and found his preserved facial challenge to New York's age-based restriction on gun licensing failed on the merits under Bruen and controlling state precedent. The People did not oppose vacatur of the fees, so those monetary assessments were removed.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Durell Anderson’s conviction and sentence from Supreme Court, New York County. Anderson appealed a June 29, 2023 judgment; after argument, the appellate court reviewed the record, found the sentence not excessive, and denied relief. The opinion is brief: the court entered a unanimous order affirming the lower court’s judgment and referred defense counsel to the court’s Rule 606.5. No extended opinion or new legal holdings were published.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Robert W. Randolph’s conviction following his guilty plea to third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance. Randolph pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement that included a five-year prison term and a waiver of appellate rights; County Court imposed the agreed sentence. The appellate court found the written and colloquy-based appeal waiver valid, declined to disturb the plea (finding the voluntariness claim unpreserved), and rejected challenges to the People’s certificate of compliance and statutory speedy-trial claims as forfeited or foreclosed by the waiver. A constitutional speedy-trial claim was unpreserved and, on the merits, would not warrant relief.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Anthony Nesbitt’s convictions and sentences following his guilty plea to first-degree criminal contempt, attempted second-degree assault, and second-degree menacing. The court held that Nesbitt’s written appeal waiver was invalid because it failed to clearly explain what collateral challenges survived, so his challenge to sentence was not precluded. On the merits, however, the court found the agreed-upon consecutive sentences lawful and not unduly harsh, declined to modify the sentence in the interest of justice, and noted that any request about a missing letter of support should be made to County Court.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Jose Martinez's conviction and sentence for third-degree robbery after he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver. The court found the oral plea colloquy adequately explained the appeal waiver, separate from rights lost by pleading guilty, and that Martinez acknowledged discussing the waiver with counsel and understood its consequences. Because the waiver was knowing and voluntary and Martinez had been informed of the possible prison exposure if he failed interim probation, his challenge to the severity of the sentence was barred.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Jerry Ellington's conviction and agreed-upon sentence after a guilty plea to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree. Ellington had pleaded guilty in satisfaction of an indictment charging multiple contraband-related offenses and admitted his involvement; County Court imposed a 1½ to 3-year term to run consecutive to his existing sentence. The appellate court found his challenges to plea voluntariness and counsel performance unpreserved and, on the merits, concluded the plea colloquy and record showed the plea was knowing and voluntary. The court also held the agreed sentence was the minimum authorized by law and not excessive.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed County Court's denial of defendant Duane MM.'s 2022 application for resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). Defendant, convicted in 1996 of two counts of second-degree murder and other property offenses for killings committed when he was 16, argued his history of sexual abuse by his father significantly contributed to the crimes and that his original sentence was unduly harsh. The court found the expert testimony lacked sufficient contact with or records about defendant and offered no nexus to one murder, and defendant's own statement did not tie the abuse to his actions. Because defendant did not prove the required DVSJA factors by a preponderance of the evidence, resentencing was properly denied.

The Court of Appeals held that a defendant may not be required, as a condition of a negotiated guilty plea, to waive a Penal Law § 60.12 hearing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). N.H. accepted a plea conditioned on waiving a § 60.12 hearing; the Court concluded such a waiver is not enforceable and reversed the Appellate Division, remitting the case to Supreme Court for further proceedings. The majority emphasized the DVSJA’s remedial purpose to afford survivor-defendants a judicial opportunity to establish eligibility for alternative, less severe sentences and treated the hearing right as unwaivable in plea bargaining.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Term, vacated Warren Burgess's guilty plea to misdemeanor criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and remitted the case to Criminal Court for further proceedings. Burgess had pleaded to a misdemeanor after felony counts were crossed out at arraignment, but the accusatory instrument lacked any factual allegation that the recovered firearm was operable — an element required to sustain the weapon possession charge. Because a facially sufficient accusatory instrument is a jurisdictional prerequisite that survives a guilty plea, the Court concluded the misdemeanor information was jurisdictionally defective and could not support the plea.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order dismissing two counts of a grand jury indictment against defendant Rony Zino. The charges—criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving—arose from an October 11, 2023 vehicle-pedestrian accident that resulted in the pedestrian's death. The court held the grand jury evidence, even viewed in the People’s favor, did not provide the prima facie proof required for those crimes because it failed to show the defendant engaged in the degree of blameworthy conduct or reckless disregard of consequences necessary for conviction.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order designating Benjamin Williams a level two sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. Williams pleaded guilty to possessing child sexual performance material; after a SORA hearing the court scored him 80 points on the risk instrument, denied his request for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level, and imposed the level two designation. The appellate court held the trial court properly exercised its discretion because the quantity, nature, duration of viewing, and sharing of images supported the assessed risk, and other claimed mitigating factors were either unpreserved or already accounted for by the Guidelines.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Troy Williams's conviction for first-degree manslaughter after a jury trial but reduced his sentence in the interest of justice. The court found the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, denied claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and held a claim that the People withheld Brady material must be raised in a CPL 440.10 motion because the supporting facts are dehors the record. Exercising its discretion, the court reduced the prison term from 15 years to 8 years (postrelease supervision unchanged) and otherwise affirmed the judgment.