People v. Batista
Docket Ind No. 459/21|Appeal No. 6437|Case No. 2023-00938|
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 02471
- Docket numbers
- Ind No459/21Appeal No6437Case No2023-00938
Appeal from judgment of conviction and sentence in Supreme Court, Bronx County.
Summary
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.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendant's as-applied constitutional challenge to New York's gun licensing age restriction is reviewable given his valid waiver of appeal.
- Whether defendant's facial constitutional challenge to the age restriction on gun licensing survives and succeeds under Bruen.
- Whether defendant's sentence, including the term of postrelease supervision, is excessive.
- Whether mandatory surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing should be vacated in the interest of justice.
Court's Reasoning
The court concluded Batista validly waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his as-applied constitutional and excessive-sentence claims. Even if considered, the court found the as-applied claim unpreserved and meritless under controlling precedent. The facial challenge was considered and rejected because Bruen invalidated only the proper-cause requirement and did not strike the remainder of the State's licensing statute. Finally, the court used its interest-of-justice authority to vacate surcharge and fees, noting the People did not oppose that relief.
Authorities Cited
- People v Thomas34 NY3d 545 (2019), cert denied 589 U.S. 1302 (2020)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen597 U.S. 1 (2022)
- People v Johnson2025 NY Slip Op 06528
- People v Chirinos190 AD3d 434 (1st Dept 2021)
Parties
- Appellant
- Shawn Batista
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Attorney
- Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society (Noah Sherr Breslau of counsel)
- Attorney
- Darcel D. Clark, Bronx District Attorney (Mary McGarvey-Depuy of counsel)
- Judge
- Scarpulla, J.P.
- Judge
- Friedman, J.
- Judge
- Gesmer, J.
- Judge
- Shulman, J.
- Judge
- Chan, J.
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Judgment date
- 2023-01-18
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Review judgment and fee vacatur
Defense counsel should ensure the trial court's sentencing docket and entry are amended to reflect vacatur of the surcharge and fees and obtain any necessary clerk's entries or orders.
- 2
Consider further appellate options
If there are grounds, counsel may evaluate whether any narrow issues remain appealable to the Court of Appeals, keeping in mind the valid waiver and the court's reliance on recent precedent.
- 3
Comply with sentence
Defendant should comply with the imposed custodial sentence and the two years of postrelease supervision, as those aspects of the judgment were affirmed.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide overall?
- The court affirmed Batista's conviction and sentence but vacated the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing.
- Does this decision strike down New York's gun licensing law?
- No. The court said the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bruen invalidated only the proper-cause requirement, not the entire licensing scheme, so Batista's facial challenge failed.
- Can Batista challenge his conviction on appeal now?
- The court found he validly waived his right to appeal, which prevents review of many claims he raised, including his as-applied challenge and excessive-sentence claim.
- What immediate effect does the decision have on Batista?
- The conviction and sentence remain in place, but the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing have been vacated, reducing his financial obligations.
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 Batista - 2026 NY Slip Op 02471 People v Batista 2026 NY Slip Op 02471 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Batista, Defendant-Appellant. Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026 Ind No. 459/21|Appeal No. 6437|Case No. 2023-00938| Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, Chan, JJ. Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Noah Sherr Breslau of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Mary McGarvey-Depuy of counsel), for respondent. Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert Lorenzo, J. on motion to dismiss; Dineen A. Riviezzo, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered January 18, 2023, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years followed by two years of postrelease supervision, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing, and otherwise affirmed. Defendant validly waived his right to appeal ( see People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]), which forecloses his as-applied constitutional challenge to the age restriction in New York's gun licensing scheme ( see People v Johnson , — NY3d —,—, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *2 [2025]). As alternative holdings, we find that the claim is unpreserved because it was not asserted in the trial court ( see People v Cabrera , 41 NY3d 35, 41-52 [2023]; People v Maldonado , 242 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1053 [2025]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, the claim has no merit ( see People v Tompson , 235 AD3d 540, 541 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1012 [2025]; People v Bailey , 234 AD3d 560, 561 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1044 [2025]). Defendant's facial challenge survives his voluntary waiver of the right to appeal, and he had standing to assert it on appeal regardless of whether he sought to obtain a gun license ( see Johnson , 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *2 [2025]). However, the facial constitutional challenge fails on the merits because New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US 1 [2022]) did not strike down New York's gun-licensing scheme in its entirety but rather invalidated the statute's proper cause requirement and left the balance of the statute undisturbed (see Johnson , 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *3). Defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal also forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim. In any event, there is no basis for reducing the term of postrelease supervision. However, based on our interest of justice powers, we vacate the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed on defendant at sentencing ( see People v Chirinos , 190 AD3d 434, 435 [1st Dept 2021]). We note that the People do not oppose this relief. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 23, 2026