What did the court decide?

The court reduced Thompson’s prison term from two-to-four years to 1 1/3-to-3 years but otherwise left his conviction and the trial court’s judgment in place.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision directly affects defendant Julsean Thompson by shortening his sentence; it does not change the conviction itself.

Why was the sentence changed?

The appellate court found the original sentence excessive and used its discretionary power to modify the term in the interest of justice.

Can this decision be appealed further?

A further appeal to a higher court (such as the Court of Appeals) may be possible, but additional review is not automatic and would depend on preserving issues and meeting appellate filing requirements.

People v. Thompson

Docket Ind. No. 72577/22|Appeal No. 5455|Case No. 2023-04271|

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

Criminal AppealAffirmed in Part, Reversed in Part

Filed: Apr 28, 2026 · 3 days 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 in Part, Reversed in Part
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02614
Docket numbers: Ind. No72577/22Appeal No5455Case No2023-04271

Appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence following a guilty plea in Supreme Court, New York County.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed defendant Julsean Thompson’s conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to first-degree custodial interference. The court unanimously modified the trial court’s judgment by reducing Thompson’s term of imprisonment from two-to-four years to 1 1/3-to-3 years as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, finding the original sentence excessive. In all other respects the judgment was affirmed, leaving the conviction and other components of the trial court’s decision intact.

Issues Decided

Whether the sentence imposed for first-degree custodial interference was excessive
Whether modification of the sentence in the interest of justice was appropriate

Court's Reasoning

The appellate court concluded the original two-to-four year term was excessive under the circumstances, and exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence as a matter of justice. Because the plea and conviction were not disturbed, the court limited its relief to resentencing, finding a reduced term sufficient to serve the purposes of punishment and protection without altering the guilty plea.

Parties

Appellant: Julsean Thompson
Respondent: The People of the State of New York
Attorney: Clara Hammond-Oakley (Legal Aid Society, counsel for appellant)
Attorney: Robert Butlien (Office of Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, counsel for respondent)
Judge: Maxwell T. Wiley (Supreme Court, trial judge)
Judge: Kennedy, J.P. (Appellate Division)
Judge: Kapnick, Rodriguez, Michael, Hagler, JJ. (Appellate Division)

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-28
Judgment rendered: 2023-07-26

What You Should Do Next

1
Confirm updated sentencing paperwork
Defense counsel should obtain and review the amended judgment and commitment papers reflecting the reduced term to ensure the correction is implemented.
2
Advise client on custody and release dates
Calculate new earliest release and maximum release dates under the reduced term and inform the defendant of any changes to prison transfer or release planning.
3
Consider further appellate options
If the People or defendant wish to seek additional review, counsel should evaluate whether to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and file any necessary applications within the applicable deadlines.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court reduced Thompson’s prison term from two-to-four years to 1 1/3-to-3 years but otherwise left his conviction and the trial court’s judgment in place.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision directly affects defendant Julsean Thompson by shortening his sentence; it does not change the conviction itself.
Why was the sentence changed?: The appellate court found the original sentence excessive and used its discretionary power to modify the term in the interest of justice.
Can this decision be appealed further?: A further appeal to a higher court (such as the Court of Appeals) may be possible, but additional review is not automatic and would depend on preserving issues and meeting appellate filing 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 Thompson - 2026 NY Slip Op 02614

People v Thompson

2026 NY Slip Op 02614

April 28, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Julsean Thompson, Appellant.

Decided and Entered: April 28, 2026

Ind. No. 72577/22|Appeal No. 5455|Case No. 2023-04271|

Before: Kennedy, J.P., Kapnick, Rodriguez, Michael, Hagler, JJ.

The Legal Aid Society, New York (Clara Hammond-Oakley of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Robert Butlien of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell T. Wiley, J.), rendered July 26, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of custodial interference in the first degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to a term of two to four years of imprisonment, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence of imprisonment to a term of 1⅓ to 3 years, and otherwise affirmed.

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

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

ENTERED: April 28, 2026