People v. Alexander
Docket 240 KA 22-00359
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02556
- Docket
- 240 KA 22-00359
Appeal from a Monroe County Court judgment convicting defendant following a jury trial
Summary
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.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court erred in denying a for-cause challenge to a prospective juror.
- Whether the court erred in admitting software-generated video files based on GPS coordinates from an ankle monitor.
- Whether the court erred in permitting a parole officer to identify defendant in still images from surveillance video.
- Whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred during summation.
Court's Reasoning
The court found the prospective juror gave an unequivocal, personal assurance of impartiality after further questioning, curing earlier concerns about bias. Many of defendant’s evidentiary challenges were unpreserved because objections at trial were too general to raise the specific grounds argued on appeal. The parole officer was permitted to identify the defendant because the officer’s familiarity with him made the lay identification helpful and the images were not so clear as to render witness opinion unnecessary. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct were unpreserved and not reviewed in the interest of justice.
Authorities Cited
- People v Clark171 AD3d 1530 (4th Dept 2019)
- People v Arnold96 NY2d 358 (2001)
- People v Mosley41 NY3d 640 (2024)
Parties
- Appellant
- Dvontea Alexander
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Douglas A. Randall
- Attorney
- Julie Cianca, Public Defender (Alexander Prieto of counsel)
- Attorney
- Brian P. Green, District Attorney (Aeron Schwallie of counsel)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Judgment rendered
- 2022-02-10
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult appellate counsel about further review
If defendant wants additional review, counsel should evaluate and, if appropriate, seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals within the applicable deadline.
- 2
Check preservation and record issues
Defense counsel should review the trial record to identify any preserved issues that could support further appellate relief or a collateral challenge.
- 3
Consider post-conviction options
Explore post-conviction motions or habeas corpus remedies where appropriate, particularly for claims not dependent on preservation rules.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions and rejected the defendant’s main trial and evidentiary challenges.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant Dvontea Alexander remains convicted on the charges listed; the People’s convictions stand.
- What happens next?
- Unless the defendant obtains further review (for example, permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals), the affirmed judgment remains in effect and any sentence stands.
- Why were some arguments not considered?
- Several contentions were not preserved because trial objections were too general, and the court declined to review unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct claims in the interest of justice.
- Can this be appealed further?
- The defendant may seek leave to appeal to New York’s Court of Appeals, but such further review is discretionary.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Alexander - 2026 NY Slip Op 02556 People v Alexander 2026 NY Slip Op 02556 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v DVONTEA ALEXANDER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 240 KA 22-00359 Present: Whalen, P.J., Bannister, Smith, Nowak, And Delconte, JJ. JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (ALEXANDER PRIETO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. BRIAN P. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (AERON SCHWALLIE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Douglas A. Randall, J.), rendered February 10, 2022. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree (two counts), assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts). It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). We affirm. Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court did not err in denying defendant's for-cause challenge to a prospective juror. While the prospective juror's initial statements in response to questions from defense counsel raised a concern about his ability to render an impartial verdict, his responses to defense counsel's additional inquiries constituted " 'a personal, unequivocal assurance of impartiality [that] cure[d his] prior indication that [he was] . . . predisposed against . . . defendant' " ( People v Clark , 171 AD3d 1530, 1531 [4th Dept 2019], quoting People v Arnold , 96 NY2d 358, 364 [2001]; see People v Warrington , 28 NY3d 1116, 1120-1121 [2016]). Defendant next contends that the court erred in admitting in evidence certain software-generated video files purporting to show defendant's location based upon GPS coordinates obtained from an ankle monitor that defendant wore while on parole. The video files, together with multiple other files, were admitted on a single disc identified as People's Exhibit 31. Defendant argues that the People did not lay an adequate foundation for admission of the video files because the People failed to explain how the video files were created and failed to establish that the locations identified on the video files accurately reflected the ankle monitor's location. However, defendant's general objection to a lack of foundation for admission of Exhibit 31 is insufficient to preserve the specific contention that defendant now advances on appeal with respect to the adequacy of the foundation for the video files at issue ( see generally People v Combs , 243 AD3d 1259, 1260 [4th Dept 2025]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that the court did not err in permitting defendant's parole officer to identify him in two still images taken from surveillance video footage. The parole officer "had sufficient contact with . . . defendant to achieve a level of familiarity that render[ed] the lay opinion helpful" ( People v Mosley , 41 NY3d 640, 648 [2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and while the images at issue are relatively clear, they are "not so crystal clear that the jury could identify a person as capably as any witness" ( id. at 649). To the extent that defendant challenges the parole officer's identification of him in three other still images, that contention is unpreserved for our review ( see People v Rhynes , 239 AD3d 1461, 1465 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1029 [2025]; see generally People v Montanez , 135 AD3d 528, 528 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1072 [2016]). Defendant also failed to preserve his contention that the People engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during summation ( see People v McGuire , 218 AD3d 1357, 1358 [4th Dept 2023]; People v Reynolds , 211 AD3d 1493, 1494 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1079 [2023]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they do not warrant modification or reversal of the judgment. Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn