People v. Jackson
Docket Ind No. 73164/23|Appeal No. 6502|Case No. 2025-00587|
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 02729
- Docket numbers
- Ind No73164/23Appeal No6502Case No2025-00587
Appeal from judgment of conviction (guilty plea) and sentence in Supreme Court, Bronx County.
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Michael T. Jackson's conviction and sentence after a guilty plea for criminal possession of a firearm, rejecting his challenges. The court held Jackson validly waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his excessive-sentence and most probation-condition claims. A facial challenge to the statute's "good moral character" licensing provision survives waiver and Jackson has standing, but the claim was unpreserved and not reviewed in the interest of justice; alternatively the court found it meritless. Ineffective-assistance claims based on counsel's failure to raise that argument must be pursued in a CPL 440.10 motion and were otherwise rejected on the record.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal, precluding review of his sentence and certain challenges.
- Whether the "good moral character" provision of New York's gun licensing scheme can be facially challenged by a defendant who never applied for a license.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a good moral character challenge.
- Whether probation condition 7 is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant.
Court's Reasoning
The court found the record shows a valid waiver of appeal, which bars review of the excessive-sentence claim and as-applied challenges to probation conditions. The facial challenge to the licensing "good moral character" provision survives waiver and the defendant has standing, but because the argument was not preserved the court declined to reach it in the interest of justice and alternatively rejected it as meritless based on precedent. Ineffective-assistance claims raising matters outside the record must be brought in a CPL 440.10 motion, and the portion reviewable on the record did not meet the standard for ineffective assistance.
Authorities Cited
- People v Thomas34 NY3d 545 (2019), cert denied 589 U.S. 1302 (2020)
- People v Lowndes239 AD3d 574 (1st Dept 2025), lv denied 44 NY3d 1012 (2025)
- People v Johnson— NY3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528 (2025)
- People v Martinez238 AD3d 423 (1st Dept 2025), lv denied 44 NY3d 1067 (2026)
- People v Caban5 NY3d 143 (2005)
Parties
- Appellant
- Michael T. Jackson
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Attorney
- Jenay Nurse Guilford (Leanna J. Duncan of counsel)
- Attorney
- Darcel D. Clark (Joseph P. Tucker of counsel)
- Judge
- Steven J. Hornstein
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-30
- Judgment rendered
- 2024-12-18
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider CPL 440.10 motion
If Jackson wants to press ineffective-assistance claims based on evidence outside the trial record, counsel should prepare and file a CPL 440.10 motion in the trial court with supporting proof.
- 2
Consult appellate counsel about leave to appeal
Discuss with counsel whether seeking leave to the Court of Appeals is viable given the valid waiver and preservation issues identified by the First Department.
- 3
Comply with probation conditions
Until and unless any condition is changed by a court, Jackson should follow the probation terms to avoid violation proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court affirmed Jackson's conviction and three-year probation sentence and declined to review most of his challenges because he validly waived his right to appeal or failed to preserve the issues.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Michael T. Jackson is affected as the defendant; the decision also confirms limits on appellate review when a defendant waives appeal or fails to preserve claims.
- What happens next for Jackson?
- Jackson may pursue ineffective-assistance claims based on facts outside the record by filing a CPL 440.10 motion; otherwise the conviction and sentence stand.
- Can Jackson challenge the gun-licensing "good moral character" provision?
- The court said the facial challenge survives waiver and Jackson has standing, but because he did not preserve the claim the court declined to reach it on the merits and alternatively found it unpersuasive under existing precedent.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- This is an intermediate appellate decision; Jackson could seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but the opinion notes waiver issues and preservation problems that would limit further review.
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 Jackson - 2026 NY Slip Op 02729 People v Jackson 2026 NY Slip Op 02729 April 30, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael T. Jackson, Defendant-Appellant. Decided and Entered: April 30, 2026 Ind No. 73164/23|Appeal No. 6502|Case No. 2025-00587| Before: Kennedy, J.P., Gesmer, González, Rosado, Chan, JJ. Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Leanna J. Duncan of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Joseph P. Tucker of counsel), for respondent. Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven J. Hornstein, J.), rendered December 18, 2024, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a firearm, and sentencing him to 3 years of probation, unanimously affirmed. Defendant validly waived his right to appeal ( see People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545, 559 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]), which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim ( see People v Lowndes , 239 AD3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1012 [2025]). As an alternative holding, we perceive no basis to reduce his sentence. Defendant's facial challenge to the "good moral character" provision of New York's gun licensing scheme survives his waiver of the right to appeal, and he has standing to bring it despite his never having applied for a gun license ( see People v Johnson , — NY3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *2 [2025]). However, the contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice ( id. ) Alternatively, we find the claim unavailing ( see People v Martinez , 238 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1067 [2026]). Defendant's ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsel's failure to raise his good moral character argument is not reviewable because it involves matters not reflected in the record and thus must first be raised in a CPL 440.10 motion ( see People v Martinez , 231 AD3d 448, 449 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1081 [2025]). To the extent the record permits review, we find that defendant has failed to establish that counsel was ineffective ( see People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]). Defendant's as-applied constitutional challenges to condition 7 of his probation, which requires him to "[a]void injurious or vicious habits; refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places; and do not consort with disreputable people" are foreclosed by his valid wavier of the right to appeal ( see Lowndes , 239 AD3d at 575). They are also unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice ( id. ). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 30, 2026