People v. Anderson
Docket Ind No. 1397/21, 71988/22|Appeal No. 6450|Case No. 2023-04194|
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 02464
- Docket numbers
- Ind No1397/21, 71988/22Appeal No6450Case No2023-04194
Appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered June 29, 2023 in Supreme Court, New York County
Summary
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.
Issue Decided
- Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive
Court's Reasoning
The appellate court reviewed the sentence imposed by the trial court and determined it was not excessive under the governing standards for sentencing review. The court did not find grounds to disturb the trial court’s exercise of sentencing discretion and therefore affirmed. No additional legal errors or reversible mistakes were identified in the short order.
Parties
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Appellant
- Durell Anderson
- Judge
- Brendan T. Lantry
- Attorney
- Jenay Nurse Guilford
- Attorney
- Andrew H. Chung
- Attorney
- Alvin L. Bragg, Jr.
Key Dates
- Lower court judgment date
- 2023-06-29
- Appellate decision date
- 2026-04-23
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider appeal to New York Court of Appeals
If the defendant wishes to continue contesting the judgment, counsel should evaluate filing an application for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals and prepare any necessary papers within the applicable time limits.
- 2
Consult counsel about Rule 606.5 referral
Defense counsel was referred to § 606.5 of the Appellate Division, First Department rules; the defense should consult counsel to understand and address that referral if required.
- 3
Compliance with sentence
Absent a successful further appeal, the defendant and counsel should ensure compliance with the sentence and any related conditions or deadlines.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and found the sentence was not excessive.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant Durell Anderson is directly affected; the People of the State of New York remain the prevailing party.
- Does this mean the conviction and sentence stay in place?
- Yes; the affirmation leaves the conviction and the sentence imposed on June 29, 2023 in effect.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- A defendant may seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, subject to that court’s rules and time limits; consult counsel about filing a leave application.
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 Anderson - 2026 NY Slip Op 02464 People v Anderson 2026 NY Slip Op 02464 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Durell Anderson, Defendant-Appellant. Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026 Ind No. 1397/21, 71988/22|Appeal No. 6450|Case No. 2023-04194| Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, Chan, JJ. Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Benjamin Rutkin-Becker of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Andrew H. Chung of counsel), for respondent. An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Brendan T. Lantry, J.), rendered June 29, 2023, Said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, It is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 23, 2026 Counsel for appellant is referred to § 606.5, Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department.