People v. Mendez
Docket Ind No. 537/21 70606/22|Appeal No. 6501|Case No. 2023-00988|
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 02728
- Docket numbers
- Ind No537/21 70606/22Appeal No6501Case No2023-00988
Appeal from judgment of conviction following denial of suppression and plea and sentencing in Supreme Court, Bronx County
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Luis Mendez’s convictions for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and third-degree burglary and his concurrent sentences. The court held Mendez validly waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his suppression challenge, and alternatively found the trial court correctly denied suppression. The court accepted credibility findings and concluded police lawfully approached based on an intelligence report about a trend of firearms in fanny packs, observed a street-crossing violation, and legitimately pursued Mendez when he fled, making the abandonment of the fanny pack and the discovery of the gun lawful.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal, precluding review of suppression rulings.
- Whether the police conduct was lawful such that the search and seizure (discovery of the firearm in the abandoned fanny pack) did not require suppression.
- Whether defendant's flight justified officers' pursuit and the abandonment exception to suppression.
Court's Reasoning
The court concluded the waiver of appeal was valid under precedent, which forecloses review of the suppression claim. Alternatively, the court accepted the trial judge's credibility findings and found officers had lawful basis to approach based on an intelligence report about a local trend of firearms in fanny packs and their observation of a crosswalk violation. Defendant's flight and his statement that he had nothing on him justified pursuit, and the abandonment of the fanny pack during that flight made the recovery of the gun lawful rather than the product of police misconduct.
Authorities Cited
- People v Thomas34 NY3d 545 (2019), cert denied 589 U.S. 1302 (2020)
- People v Sainz-Mantilla129 AD3d 508 (1st Dept 2015), lv denied 26 NY3d 1011 (2015)
- People v Delgado4 AD3d 310 (1st Dept 2004), lv denied 2 NY3d 798 (2004)
Parties
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Defendant-Appellant
- Luis Mendez
- Attorney
- Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation (John L. Palmer of counsel)
- Attorney
- Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Noah J. Chamoy of counsel)
- Judge
- Kennedy, J.P.
- Judge
- Gesmer, J.
- Judge
- González, J.
- Judge
- Rosado, J.
- Judge
- Chan, J.
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-30
- Judgment rendered
- 2023-02-10
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult defense counsel about appellate waiver and options
Defense should review the record with counsel to confirm the scope of the waiver and determine whether there are any preserved issues or grounds for a limited application to the Court of Appeals.
- 2
Consider post-conviction remedies
If appropriate, evaluate whether there are federal habeas corpus claims or state collateral remedies that are not barred by the waiver or procedural default.
- 3
Comply with sentence and incarceration requirements
Defendant should follow sentencing orders and address classification, programming, and release planning with counsel or prison officials.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed Mendez's convictions and sentences and rejected his challenge to the denial of suppression of the gun evidence.
- Why wasn't the gun evidence suppressed?
- The court found police approached lawfully based on an intelligence report and observed violations; Mendez fled and abandoned the fanny pack, so the recovery of the firearm was not caused by illegal police action.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Luis Mendez is affected because his convictions and sentences were affirmed; it also affirms the law enforcement actions in this case and limits avenues for similar suppression challenges here.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- The opinion notes defendant validly waived his right to appeal, but if any appeal were available, the next step would be a leave application to the Court of Appeals, although waiver and the alternative merits ruling make further review unlikely to succeed.
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 Mendez - 2026 NY Slip Op 02728 People v Mendez 2026 NY Slip Op 02728 April 30, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Mendez, Defendant-Appellant. Decided and Entered: April 30, 2026 Ind No. 537/21 70606/22|Appeal No. 6501|Case No. 2023-00988| Before: Kennedy, J.P., Gesmer, González, Rosado, Chan, JJ. Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (John L. Palmer of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Noah J. Chamoy of counsel), for respondent. Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis Boyle, J. at suppression hearing; Albert Lorenzo, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered February 10, 2023, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of three years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed. Defendant validly waived his right to appeal ( see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 559, 567 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]), which forecloses review of his challenge to the suppression ruling ( see People v McCreary , 237 AD3d 412, 412 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1047 [2025]). As an alternative holding, we find that Supreme Court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Initially, there is no basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations. After receiving an intelligence report highlighting a "trend" of carrying firearms in fanny packs in the area, the police lawfully approached defendant, who was holding a fanny pack that appeared heavy. Defendant alerted his companion to a police van, apparently in order to avoid it, repositioned the fanny pack away from the officers upon making eye contact with one of them, after they saw him cross the street outside of a crosswalk in violation of former 34 RCNY § 4-04(c)(2) (amended City Record May 27, 2025, effective June 26, 2025) ( see People v Sainz-Mantilla , 129 AD3d 508, 508 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1011 [2015]; see also People v Simms , 25 AD3d 425, 425 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 838 [2006]). Defendant's subsequent flight, paired with his volunteering that he did not have anything on him, justified the officers' pursuit ( see People v Delgado , 4 AD3d 310, 310-311 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]). Defendant's abandonment of the fanny pack that contained a .22 caliber pistol in the course of his flight thus was not the product of unlawful police activity ( see People v Basono , 122 AD3d 553, 553 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1069 [2015]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 30, 2026