What did the court decide?

The court affirmed Faulkner's conviction and sentence for second-degree weapon possession, rejecting his Second Amendment challenge and finding no basis to reduce postrelease supervision.

Why wasn't the Second Amendment claim successful?

The claim was not preserved at trial and the court declined to reach it; even on the merits the court found the defendant failed to show New York's "good moral character" licensing rule was invalid under the relevant Supreme Court decision.

Can Faulkner raise ineffective assistance of counsel?

He must raise that claim in a CPL 440.10 motion because it involves facts outside the record; the court also indicated the claim lacked merit on its face.

Who is affected by this decision?

Faulkner remains convicted and sentenced as affirmed; the decision also signals that similar unpreserved Second Amendment claims will generally not be entertained on direct appeal.

People v. Faulkner

Docket Ind No. 70284/23|Appeal No. 6432|Case No. 2024-06832|

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

Criminal AppealAffirmed

Filed: Apr 23, 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 02467
Docket numbers: Ind No70284/23Appeal No6432Case No2024-06832

Appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence in Supreme Court, New York County for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Jesse Faulkner's conviction for second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and his sentence of 3½ years plus five years of postrelease supervision. The court rejected Faulkner's unpreserved Second Amendment challenge and declined to review it in the interest of justice. Alternatively, the court held he had standing to bring a facial challenge but failed to show New York's "good moral character" licensing requirement was invalid under Bruen. His ineffective-assistance claim was held unreviewable on direct appeal and, in any event, meritless because the claim had little chance of success.

Issues Decided

Whether the defendant's Second Amendment claim was preserved and reviewable on direct appeal.
Whether the "good moral character" licensing requirement is invalid under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen as applied to the defendant.
Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to preserve the Second Amendment claim.

Court's Reasoning

The court found the Second Amendment claim was not preserved and declined to review it in the interest of justice. Even assuming standing for a facial challenge, the defendant did not establish that Bruen invalidated the state's "good moral character" requirement, so his conviction remained lawful. The ineffective-assistance claim could not be raised on direct appeal because it depended on facts outside the record and, furthermore, lacked merit because the underlying claim had little likelihood of success.

Authorities Cited

People v Cabrera41 NY3d 35 (2023)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen597 U.S. 1 (2022)
People v Caban5 NY3d 143 (2005)

Parties

Appellant: Jesse Faulkner
Respondent: The People of the State of New York
Judge: Scarpulla, J.P.
Judge: Friedman, J.
Judge: Gesmer, J.
Judge: Shulman, J.
Judge: Chan, J.
Attorney: Jenay Nurse Guilford (Center for Appellate Litigation)
Attorney: Michael D. Tarbutton (for District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr.)

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-23
Judgment/sentence date: 2024-02-22

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider CPL 440.10 motion
If the defendant wants to pursue ineffective assistance of counsel, he should file a CPL 440.10 motion presenting facts outside the record supporting that claim.
2
Consult appellate counsel about further review
Discuss whether to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or other extraordinary relief, noting the court affirmed and found the substantive claim unavailing.
3
Prepare for custody and supervision requirements
Comply with the affirmed sentence, including the five-year period of postrelease supervision and any conditions imposed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court affirmed Faulkner's conviction and sentence for second-degree weapon possession, rejecting his Second Amendment challenge and finding no basis to reduce postrelease supervision.
Why wasn't the Second Amendment claim successful?: The claim was not preserved at trial and the court declined to reach it; even on the merits the court found the defendant failed to show New York's "good moral character" licensing rule was invalid under the relevant Supreme Court decision.
Can Faulkner raise ineffective assistance of counsel?: He must raise that claim in a CPL 440.10 motion because it involves facts outside the record; the court also indicated the claim lacked merit on its face.
Who is affected by this decision?: Faulkner remains convicted and sentenced as affirmed; the decision also signals that similar unpreserved Second Amendment claims will generally not be entertained on direct appeal.

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 Faulkner - 2026 NY Slip Op 02467

People v Faulkner

2026 NY Slip Op 02467

April 23, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Jesse Faulkner, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026

Ind No. 70284/23|Appeal No. 6432|Case No. 2024-06832|

Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, Chan, JJ.

Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Cathy Liu of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Michael D. Tarbutton of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ann D. Thompson, J. at plea; Marisol M. Alonso, J. at sentencing), rendered February 22, 2024, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3½ years followed by five years of postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's Second Amendment claim is unpreserved (
see

People v Cabrera
, 41 NY3d 35, 42-51 [2023]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, while defendant has standing to assert his facial challenge notwithstanding that he never applied for a license (
see

People v Johnson
, — NY3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *2 [2025]), he fails to establish that his conviction is unconstitutional on the ground that
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen
(597 US 1 [2022]) invalidated the "good moral character" requirement (
see

People v Martinez
, 238 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2025],
lv denied
44 NY3d 1067 [2026];
People v Guzman
, 237 AD3d 570, 571 [1st Dept 2025],
lv denied
44 NY3d 993 [2025]).

Defendant's contention that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to preserve his Second Amendment claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters not reflected in the record and thus must be raised in a CPL 440.10 motion (
see

People v Williams
, 237 AD3d 569, 570 [1st Dept 2025],
lv denied
44 NY3d 1014 [2025];
People v Anderson
, 234 AD3d 603, 603-604 [1st Dept 2025],
lv

denied
43 NY3d 943 [2025]). In any event, counsel was not ineffective because the claim had "little or no chance of success" (
People v Caban
, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the term of postrelease supervision.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 23, 2026