Why didn't the court address the constitutional claim?

Because the defendant did not raise the constitutional challenges in the trial court, the appellate court found them unpreserved and declined to reach them under its interest of justice power.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision affects the defendant (appellant), who remains adjudicated a youthful offender and subject to the imposed sentence; it does not change the conviction.

Can this decision be appealed further?

The decision is from an intermediate appellate court; the defendant may seek further review by a higher court, such as the Court of Appeals, subject to that court's jurisdiction and discretionary review rules.

People v. Davone J.

Docket 2023-06109

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealAffirmed

Filed: Apr 22, 2026 · 1 week ago
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 02419
Docket: 2023-06109

Appeal from a Supreme Court judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender after a guilty plea to criminal possession of a firearm

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court judgment that adjudicated the defendant a youthful offender after a guilty plea to criminal possession of a firearm and imposed sentence. The defendant argued the conviction was unconstitutional, but the court held those constitutional challenges were not preserved because they were not raised below and declined to address them in the interest of justice. Because the court resolved preservation, it did not reach the defendant's remaining arguments.

Issues Decided

Whether the defendant's conviction for criminal possession of a firearm was unconstitutional
Whether the defendant preserved constitutional challenges for appellate review

Court's Reasoning

The court found the defendant failed to raise his constitutional challenges in the trial court, so those issues were unpreserved and not subject to appellate review. The court declined to reach the merits under its interest of justice authority, resolving the appeal on the procedural ground of preservation. Because the preservation ruling disposed of the appeal, the court did not address the defendant's other contentions.

Authorities Cited

People v David41 NY3d 90
People v Cabrera41 NY3d 35

Parties

Appellant: Davone J. (Anonymous)
Respondent: The People of the State of New York
Judge: Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.
Judge: Barry E. Warhit, J.
Judge: Lourdes M. Ventura, J.
Judge: Lisa S. Ottley, J.

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-22
Judgment date: 2023-06-23

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider seeking further appellate review
If the defendant wants to continue the challenge, counsel can evaluate filing a leave to appeal application to the state's highest court, keeping in mind appellate timetables and the discretionary nature of further review.
2
Consult defense counsel about sentencing consequences
Discuss with counsel whether the youthful offender adjudication affects collateral consequences and whether any postconviction relief, resentencing, or preservation strategies remain available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court affirmed the trial court's judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender after a guilty plea to criminal possession of a firearm.
Why didn't the court address the constitutional claim?: Because the defendant did not raise the constitutional challenges in the trial court, the appellate court found them unpreserved and declined to reach them under its interest of justice power.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision affects the defendant (appellant), who remains adjudicated a youthful offender and subject to the imposed sentence; it does not change the conviction.
Can this decision be appealed further?: The decision is from an intermediate appellate court; the defendant may seek further review by a higher court, such as the Court of Appeals, subject to that court's jurisdiction and discretionary review rules.

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 Davone J. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02419

People v Davone J.

2026 NY Slip Op 02419

April 22, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Davone J. (Anonymous), appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on April 22, 2026

2023-06109, (Ind. No. 75909/22)

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

Barry E. Warhit

Lourdes M. Ventura

Lisa S. Ottley, JJ.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Steven C. Kuza of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jean M. Joyce, and Ann Bordley of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Raymond L. Rodriguez, J.), rendered June 23, 2023, adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon his plea of guilty to criminal possession of a firearm, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contentions that his conviction of criminal possession of a firearm is unconstitutional are unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to raise those constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court (
see

People v David
, 41 NY3d 90, 96;
People v Cabrera
, 41 NY3d 35, 42), and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

In light of our determination, the defendant's remaining contention need not be reached.

DUFFY, J.P., WARHIT, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph