People v. Johnson
Docket 2020-00578
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 02672
- Docket
- 2020-00578
Appeal from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial in Supreme Court, Kings County
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Clyde Johnson’s convictions for three counts of forcible touching and one count of third-degree sexual abuse after a jury trial. The court found the defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence unpreserved but, in any event, held the evidence sufficient and the verdict not against the weight of the evidence. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct were rejected. The court also concluded the time period alleged in the forcible touching counts gave the defendant fair notice to prepare a defense.
Issues Decided
- Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support convictions for forcible touching and third-degree sexual abuse
- Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence
- Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel under state and federal standards
- Whether prosecutorial summation comments and the alleged time-period specification deprived the defendant of a fair trial or fair notice
Court's Reasoning
The court held that the sufficiency claim was unpreserved but reviewed the record and found the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, adequate to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On weight review, the court gave deference to the jury's opportunity to observe witnesses and concluded the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The court found defense counsel provided meaningful representation under New York standards and met Strickland federal standards. Prosecutorial remarks were either fair comment, responsive to defense summation, or harmless, and the time period alleged in the indictment was reasonably specific to give fair notice.
Authorities Cited
- People v Contes60 NY2d 620, 621
- CPL 470.05(2)
- People v Danielson9 NY3d 342
- People v Benevento91 NY2d 708
- Strickland v Washington466 U.S. 668
- CPL 470.15(5)
- People v Atta126 AD3d 713
Parties
- Appellant
- Clyde Johnson
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.
- Judge
- Paul Wooten, J.
- Judge
- Laurence L. Love, J.
- Judge
- Susan Quirk, J.
- Attorney
- Patricia Pazner (counsel for appellant)
- Attorney
- Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney (counsel for respondent)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-29
- Trial court judgment date
- 2019-12-18
- Appellate case number
- 2020-01-01
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals
If there are colorable issues for further review, the defendant should consult counsel about filing an application for permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals within the applicable deadline.
- 2
Evaluate post-conviction options
Defense counsel should assess grounds for collateral relief, such as CPL post-conviction motions or a federal habeas petition, and advise on timelines and merits.
- 3
Request sentencing-related relief if applicable
If the defendant believes the sentence itself raises issues, counsel should explore available motions or appeals limited to sentencing errors or newly discovered facts.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the criminal convictions and sentence, rejecting the defendant's challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, counsel's effectiveness, prosecutorial conduct, and notice of the charges.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The defendant, Clyde Johnson, remains convicted and sentenced; the People’s conviction is upheld and will continue to have legal effect.
- What happens next?
- Because the Appellate Division affirmed, the defendant may consider seeking further review by the Court of Appeals if procedurally available, or pursue collateral post-conviction relief where appropriate.
- Why did the court reject the ineffective-assistance claim?
- The court considered counsel’s overall performance and found it meaningful under state law and adequate under the federal standard in Strickland.
- Can this decision be appealed again?
- The defendant may seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, subject to that court’s discretionary review and any applicable procedural requirements.
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 Johnson - 2026 NY Slip Op 02672 People v Johnson 2026 NY Slip Op 02672 April 29, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Clyde Johnson, appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 29, 2026 2020-00578, (Ind. No. 5424/18) Colleen D. Duffy, J.P. Paul Wooten Laurence L. Love Susan Quirk, JJ. Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Alexa Askari and Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jordan Cerruti of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Laura R. Johnson, J.), rendered December 18, 2019, convicting him of forcible touching (three counts) and sexual abuse in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins , 11 NY3d 484, 492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633). Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution, since, viewing defense counsel's performance in its totality, counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712). Further, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution ( see Strickland v Washington , 466 US 668). The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by alleged prosecutorial misconduct based upon the prosecutor's comments during her summation is unpreserved for appellate review, as defense counsel either failed to object to the challenged comments or failed to object with sufficient specificity ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Adorno , 210 AD3d 113, 121). In any event, the challenged comments were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, fair response to defense counsel's summation, or constituted harmless error, and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( see People v Murphy , 218 AD3d 795, 797; People v Evans , 127 AD3d 780, 782). The defendant's contention that the prosecution failed to provide him with fair notice as to the forcible touching counts relating to one of the complainants is without merit. "As pertinent to this case, when a defendant is 'charged with a crime that is perpetrated by commission of a single act and time is not a substantive element of the crime charged, the allegation of when that act was committed must be reasonably specific in light of all the circumstances of the particular case'" ( People v Atta , 126 AD3d 713, 715, quoting People v Shack , 86 NY2d 529, 540; see CPL 200.50[6]). "Although an allegation of a designated period of time may suffice for the purposes of CPL 200.50(6), any such period must be reasonable" ( People v Atta , 126 AD3d at 715; see People v Morris , 61 NY2d 290, 295; People v Vogt , 172 AD2d 864, 865). Here, in light of all the relevant circumstances, the time period alleged was reasonable and the defendant was sufficiently apprised of the conduct charged so as to enable him to prepare an adequate defense ( see CPL 200.50[6]; cf. People v Atta , 126 AD3d at 715). DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, LOVE and QUIRK, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph