Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

People v. Mable

Docket Ind No. 2085/19|Appeal No. 6438|Case No. 2020-01055|

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

Criminal AppealAffirmed
Filed
Jurisdiction
New York
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type
Opinion
Disposition
Affirmed
Citation
2026 NY Slip Op 02470
Docket numbers
Ind No2085/19Appeal No6438Case No2020-01055

Appeal from judgment convicting defendant, upon guilty plea, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him as a second felony offender

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a 2019 Bronx County conviction and sentence of Michael Mable, who pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal possession of a weapon and was sentenced as a second felony offender to 2½ to 5 years. The court declined to review Mable’s claim that his plea was involuntary because he failed to preserve the issue at the plea colloquy and the narrow exception allowing late review did not apply. The court also alternatively held that the record contains no evidence casting doubt on the voluntariness of the plea.

Issues Decided

  • Whether the defendant's guilty plea was involuntary and therefore subject to appellate review despite lack of preservation
  • Whether statements in a presentence interview can trigger the narrow exception allowing appellate review of an unpreserved voluntariness claim

Court's Reasoning

The court refused to review the voluntariness claim because the defendant did not preserve it at the plea colloquy and did not make statements at the colloquy that cast significant doubt on guilt, so the narrow Lopez exception did not apply. The court explained that statements made during a presentence interview do not qualify for that exception. As an alternative holding, the court found the record showed no evidence undermining the voluntariness of the plea.

Authorities Cited

  • People v Lopez71 NY2d 662 (1988)
  • People v Rios2026 NY Slip Op 00963
  • People v Grant203 A.D.3d 477 (1st Dept 2022), lv denied 38 NY3d 1033 (2022)

Parties

Respondent
The People of the State of New York
Appellant
Michael Mable
Attorney
Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society (Megan Taeschler, of counsel)
Attorney
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Mary McGarvey-DePuy, of counsel)
Judge
Michael J. Hartofilis
Judge
Bahaati E. Pitt

Key Dates

Date of judgment
2019-12-03
Decision date
2026-04-23

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Consult appellate counsel about leave to appeal

    If the defendant wishes to pursue further review, consult counsel promptly about seeking leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals and any applicable deadlines.

  2. 2

    Consider post-conviction remedies

    Discuss with counsel whether any post-conviction motions or collateral challenges (for example, ineffective assistance of counsel) are available given the record and preservation issues.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, declining to disturb the guilty plea or the prison term.
Why didn't the court reconsider whether the plea was voluntary?
Because the defendant did not raise the voluntariness issue at the plea colloquy and the limited exception that allows late review does not apply to statements made only in a presentence interview.
Who is affected by this decision?
The decision affects the defendant, Michael Mable, whose conviction and sentence remain in place; it also confirms the First Department's approach to preservation and use of presentence statements.
Can this decision be appealed further?
A further appeal to the Court of Appeals would generally require permission; the decision does not state whether leave to appeal was sought or will be sought.

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 Mable - 2026 NY Slip Op 02470

People v Mable

2026 NY Slip Op 02470

April 23, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Michael Mable, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026

Ind No. 2085/19|Appeal No. 6438|Case No. 2020-01055|

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

Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Megan Taeschler of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Mary McGarvey-DePuy of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael J. Hartofilis, J., at plea; Bahaati E. Pitt, J., at sentencing), rendered December 3, 2019, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 2½ to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. The narrow exception to the preservation rule for "where the defendant's recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea" (
People v Lopez
, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]) does not apply because defendant said nothing during the plea colloquy that raised the possibility of a defense (
see People v Rios
, — NY3d —, 2026 NY Slip Op 00963, * 3 [2026]). Defendant contends that he made statements that raised a defense of temporary lawful possession during his presentence interview, but the
Lopez
exception does not apply to statements in presentence reports (
see

People v Grant
, 203 AD3d 477, 477-478 [1st Dept 2022],
lv

denied
38 NY3d 1033 [2022];
People v Rojas
, 159 AD3d 468, 468 [1st Dept 2018],
lv

denied
31 NY3d 1086 [2018]).

As an alternative holding, we find that nothing in the record casts doubt on the voluntariness of the plea.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 23, 2026