People v. DeJesus
Docket 2022-10375
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 02666
- Docket
- 2022-10375
Appeal from a judgment of conviction after a jury verdict in Supreme Court, Queens County
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Nelson DeJesus's convictions for two counts of attempted first-degree assault and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon following a jury trial and sentence. The court rejected the defendant's confrontation-clause challenge to admission of two DNA laboratory files and testimony because the testifying analyst generated and analyzed the relevant DNA profiles. The court also found trial counsel was not ineffective and declined to review other unpreserved issues in the interest of justice.
Issues Decided
- Whether admission of two DNA laboratory files and testimony from an Office of the Chief Medical Examiner analyst violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation
- Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel
- Whether additional objections and issues not raised at trial may be reviewed on appeal in the interest of justice
Court's Reasoning
The court held the confrontation claim was preserved only in part, and where preserved it failed because the analyst who testified was the person who generated the DNA profiles and performed the analysis, satisfying confrontation requirements. The court rejected the ineffective-assistance claim based on precedent indicating counsel's performance did not fall below constitutional standards. Other issues were deemed unpreserved and the court declined to exercise its interest-of-justice power to reach them.
Authorities Cited
- People v Cabrera243 AD3d 672
- People v Bostic236 AD3d 1051
- People v Rodriguez242 AD3d 1124
- People v Pascall164 AD3d 1265
- People v Wright237 AD3d 758
- People v Tirado221 AD3d 834
- People v Hernandez209 AD3d 672
Parties
- Appellant
- Nelson DeJesus
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.
- Judge
- Linda Christopher
- Judge
- Barry E. Warhit
- Judge
- Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.
- Attorney
- Patricia Pazner (for appellant)
- Attorney
- Melinda Katz, District Attorney (for respondent)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-29
- Judgment rendered
- 2022-12-15
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals
If the defendant seeks further review, counsel should evaluate grounds for leave and prepare a timely leave application, noting the narrow preservation and confrontation issues discussed by the panel.
- 2
Review sentencing and post-conviction options
Defense counsel should review potential post-conviction relief avenues (e.g., CPL 440 motions) and any preserved appellate arguments to determine if collateral review is appropriate.
- 3
Prepare for custodial or supervisory compliance
If no further appeal is pursued or allowed, the defendant should coordinate with counsel and corrections officials to comply with the imposed sentence and any conditions.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appeals court affirmed the convictions and sentence, rejecting the defendant's key challenges to DNA evidence admission and counsel's effectiveness.
- Why was the DNA evidence allowed?
- Because the analyst who testified both generated the DNA profiles and performed the analysis, the court found admission did not violate the defendant's right to confront witnesses.
- Does this mean the defendant has no further appeal options?
- The Appellate Division affirmed; the defendant could seek further review in the Court of Appeals only if a timely leave application is made and accepted, but no automatic right to further review is established by this decision.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The defendant remains convicted and sentenced as affirmed; the People’s convictions are upheld and the decision guides how similar DNA testimony is treated on confrontation grounds.
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 DeJesus - 2026 NY Slip Op 02666 People v DeJesus 2026 NY Slip Op 02666 April 29, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Nelson DeJesus, appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 29, 2026 2022-10375, (Ind. No. 1136/21) Colleen D. Duffy, J.P. Linda Christopher Barry E. Warhit Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ. Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sankeerth Saradhi of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Christopher Blira-Koessler, and Elizabeth Gomiela of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (John F. Zoll, J.), rendered December 15, 2022, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by admitting into evidence two laboratory files related to DNA analysis performed by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York and the accompanying testimony of an analyst from that office is only partially preserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Cabrera , 243 AD3d 672, 674; People v Bostic , 236 AD3d 1051, 1054). To the extent that the issue is preserved, the admission of the files and testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the analyst who testified performed the generation of the relevant DNA profiles and conducted the relevant analysis ( see People v Rodriguez , 242 AD3d 1124, 1125; People v Pascall , 164 AD3d 1265, 1266). Contrary to the defendant's contention, his counsel was not ineffective ( see People v Wright , 237 AD3d 758, 759; People v Tirado , 221 AD3d 834, 835). The remaining issues raised by the defendant are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review those unpreserved issues ( see People v Hernandez , 209 AD3d 672). CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph