Court Filings

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Terrell L. Walker's conviction for driving while ability impaired. The court had previously reserved decision and remitted the case to Monroe County Court to resolve whether the People were required to obtain DMV refusal-hearing transcripts or recordings under the statutory discovery and whether any failure violated defendant's speedy-trial rights. On remand the court denied the motion to dismiss, and this court upheld that ruling, concluding the DMV materials were not in the prosecution's possession or deemed to be in possession and thus were not required to be obtained or listed in the certificate of compliance.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Bounleaung Thanthima’s convictions for predatory sexual assault against a child and endangering the welfare of a child. On appeal the defendant argued the jury heard evidence of oral sexual acts not specifically described to the grand jury, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held the indictment and bill of particulars were broad enough to cover the testimony, found the claimed prosecutorial errors either unpreserved or harmless, and determined defense counsel’s choices were strategic and did not amount to ineffective assistance. The sentence was upheld as not unduly harsh.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a June 25, 2024 judgment convicting Carol Steinagle after she pleaded guilty to second-degree kidnapping (Penal Law § 135.20). The defendant argued on appeal that her plea was not knowing and voluntary and that her sentence was harsh. The court found the claim unpreserved because she did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment, declined to review it in the interest of justice, and rejected the claim that the sentence was unduly harsh, so the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Joseph Serrano’s convictions for second-degree murder and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The court reviewed the trial record and concluded the guilty verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence, crediting eyewitness testimony supported by ballistics. The court rejected or found unpreserved Serrano’s claims about confrontation, suppression of statements, suggestive identification, grand jury misconduct, discovery sanctions, prosecutorial misconduct, juror misconduct, late expert disclosure, and ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding none warranted reversal or a new trial.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Markeef Royal’s convictions following a jury trial for second- and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The court rejected Royal’s double jeopardy claim that an earlier trial judge declared a mistrial without consent and without necessity, concluding defense counsel implicitly consented to the mistrial. The court also rejected challenges to a prospective juror for cause, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and a constitutional attack on Penal Law § 265.03(3) after Bruen, and found the sentence not unduly harsh.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Christopher O'Neal Jr.'s conviction following his guilty plea to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The court held that O'Neal validly waived his right to appeal, and that the oral waiver cured any deficiency in establishing on the record his understanding of the written waiver. The court also rejected his claim that the trial court erred in denying a hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, finding nothing in the record undermined counsel's effectiveness and that credibility issues could be resolved without a hearing.

The Fourth Department affirmed defendant Kenneth Nixon’s convictions entered after he pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and two counts of menacing a police or peace officer. The court held that the waiver of appeal obtained during a court-initiated plea was invalid because the record did not show a distinct and proper reason for conditioning the plea on an appeal waiver. On the merits, the court found no error in the court’s revocation of interim probation after a sufficient summary hearing showing Nixon violated curfew and failed to report to his probation officer, and it declined to grant youthful offender status.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Kenneth T. Mountzouros's convictions (jury verdict) for sexual abuse in the first and second degrees and two counts of forcible touching. The court rejected challenges that the indictment was duplicitous, that the first-count time frame rendered it defective, and that the court erred by admitting victim testimony about uncharged acts and expert testimony about child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Several preservation failures also prevented review of other claims. The court noted the Livingston County District Attorney failed to file an opposing brief on appeal.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed defendant James A. Moore’s conviction following a jury trial. Moore was convicted of three counts of first-degree sexual abuse and one count of second-degree escape. The court issued a brief order affirming the underlying Supreme Court, Monroe County judgment, adopting the same memorandum opinion issued in the companion appeal listed as Appeal No. 1. No change to the convictions or sentence was made by this decision.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Curtez McLaurin’s conviction following a jury trial for second-degree murder (felony murder), attempted first-degree robbery, and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The court rejected McLaurin’s request for a manslaughter-in-the-second-degree jury charge because that offense is not a lesser included offense of felony murder, and found no prejudice from the omission as McLaurin had been acquitted of intentional murder. The court also declined to review an unpreserved challenge to a supplemental jury instruction, found the verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence, and affirmed the sentence as not unduly harsh.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Carlos Machado-Garcia’s convictions following a jury trial for multiple theft-related offenses, including two counts each of third-degree criminal possession of stolen property and third-degree burglary, plus attempted grand larceny and fourth-degree grand larceny. The court held the verdicts were supported by evidence (including exclusive possession of a stolen vehicle and conflicting statements to police), denied a severance request because the separate incidents were similar and properly joined, rejected ineffective assistance claims as strategy disagreements or unpreserved, and found the sentence not unduly harsh.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Carlos A. Machado-Garcia's conviction following a guilty plea to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The defendant argued his plea was not knowing and voluntary because the court failed to advise him about sentencing consequences under Penal Law § 70.25(2-b), and he also raised ineffective-assistance claims. The court held the failure to preserve the plea-advice claim barred review and declined to reach it in the interest of justice. The panel rejected the surviving ineffective-assistance arguments, finding counsel was not ineffective for failing to secure concurrent sentencing.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Warren Love’s conviction following his guilty plea to third-degree grand larceny. Love had asked to represent himself after complaining about communication with appointed counsel, but the court found his request equivocal because he sought self-representation only as an alternative to receiving new counsel. The court further held Love failed to preserve his claim that the plea was involuntary because he did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment, and no exception to preservation applied. Accordingly, the conviction was affirmed.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed a Cayuga County Court judgment convicting Craig E. Laird, who pleaded guilty, of four counts of aggravated family offense and one count of criminal contempt in the second degree. The appeal challenged the conviction following the October 3, 2024 judgment, but the appellate court unanimously found no reversible error and affirmed. The opinion is brief and records the affirmance without extended discussion of the underlying facts or legal analysis.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Ryan S. Kelsey’s conviction for second-degree assault entered after his guilty plea in Cayuga County Court. The court reviewed the appeal from the May 16, 2024 judgment and unanimously affirmed, rejecting the grounds raised by the defendant. The opinion is short and concludes the plea and resulting conviction were proper, leaving the trial court’s judgment intact without further modification or remand.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously affirmed a conviction of defendant Ryan S. Kelsey. Kelsey pleaded guilty in Cayuga County Court to the crime of aggravated family offense, and the appellate court reviewed the judgment entered February 13, 2024. The court issued a short order affirming the conviction without published opinion, indicating it found no reversible error in the plea-based judgment or the sentencing process in the record presented.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Kimberly J. Jones's convictions for two counts of second-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, first- and second-degree robbery, and criminal possession of stolen property following a jury trial. The court rejected challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, concluding that surveillance footage, cell-site data, physical evidence (including a synthetic wig fiber), the victim's restrained decomposing body, and other circumstantial proof permitted a rational jury to find defendant guilty as a principal or accomplice. The court modified the sentencing structure to make certain robbery sentences concurrent with the murder and first-degree robbery sentences, but left the aggregate 40-years-to-life term intact.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Jaquan C.'s conviction following his guilty plea to first-degree manslaughter. The court held that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing and valid, which waived his challenge to sentence severity. The majority rejected defendant's ineffective-assistance claim about counsel's failure to seek a hearing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA), concluding the record was insufficient to resolve that claim and that it should be raised in a CPL article 440 motion. Two judges dissented, finding counsel was ineffective and would have vacated the sentence for a DVSJA hearing.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant William Giambelluca's convictions for second-degree felony murder and first-degree robbery arising from an incident in which he followed a victim from a bar, struck him with a wooden baluster, stole his wallet, and the victim later died from blunt head injuries. The court rejected challenges to the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence on causation, upheld denial of suppression of defendant's stationhouse statements, found an evidentiary error in impeachment of a defense expert harmless given overwhelming proof, and rejected claims of prosecutorial misconduct and excessive sentence.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Supreme Court (Niagara County) order classifying defendant David W. Free, Jr. as a level two risk under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The defendant appealed the risk-level determination. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's order, agreeing with the trial court's evaluation and application of SORA factors and finding no reversible error in the risk-assessment determination.

The Fourth Department affirmed defendant George Everson’s conviction for second-degree attempted murder after he pleaded guilty mid-trial. The court held that Everson validly waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his speedy-trial and sentence-length claims. His challenge that the plea was not knowing and voluntary survives the waiver but is unpreserved because he never moved to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment. Other claims — inadequate grand jury notice, denial of mistrial, and ineffective assistance — were forfeited by the plea, procedurally barred, or must be raised in postconviction proceedings.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Austin R. Deal's conviction for aggravated criminal contempt entered after a guilty plea in Cayuga County Court. The court issued a short, unanimous order affirming the judgment and adopting the same memorandum issued in a related appeal (People v Deal, Appeal No. 1). No new factual findings or legal analysis are included in this slip opinion beyond affirmance of the conviction entered April 18, 2024.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously affirmed two Cayuga County Court judgments convicting defendant Austin R. Deal after guilty pleas: one for aggravated family offense and the other for aggravated criminal contempt. The court rejected defendant's challenges to the issuance of an order of protection, holding the court did not abuse its discretion and was not required to obtain consent from the protected person, and noted the order can be modified by motion if circumstances change. The court also found the sentences were not unduly harsh or severe and therefore affirmed both convictions and sentences.

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.