What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender and imposing sentence; it did not rule on the constitutional claims because they were not properly preserved.

Does this mean the court ruled the youthful-offender adjudication was constitutional?

No. The court did not decide the merits of the constitutional arguments; it affirmed the judgment on procedural grounds because the issues were not preserved for appeal.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision directly affects the defendant, who remains adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced as ordered in the lower court.

Can the defendant raise these constitutional claims again?

Because the appellate court found the claims unpreserved, the defendant may be limited in raising them on appeal unless there is a valid basis (such as a recognized exception) to excuse lack of preservation or unless new proceedings permit review.

People v. Treaston M.

Docket 2023-05723

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

Criminal AppealAffirmed

Filed: Apr 29, 2026 · 2 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
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02675
Docket: 2023-05723

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, adjudicating defendant a youthful offender upon a guilty plea to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and imposing sentence.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender after he pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and imposing sentence. The defendant argued that the youthful-offender adjudication violated his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights, but the appellate court found those constitutional claims unpreserved for review and declined to decide them in the interest of justice. Consequently, the lower court's judgment was affirmed without addressing the merits of the constitutional challenges.

Issues Decided

Whether the youthful-offender adjudication following a guilty plea to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon violated the Second Amendment.
Whether the youthful-offender adjudication following a guilty plea to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Court's Reasoning

The court concluded the defendant failed to preserve his constitutional challenges for appellate review, citing established preservation doctrine. Because the claims were not preserved, the court refused to reach their merits and also declined to address them under its interest of justice jurisdiction. Therefore, the judgment below was affirmed based on procedural grounds rather than a merits determination of the constitutional issues.

Authorities Cited

People v David41 NY3d 90, 96
People v Cabrera41 NY3d 35, 38-39
People v Davidson98 NY2d 738, 739
People v Luperon85 NY2d 71, 78

Parties

Appellant: Treason M.
Respondent: The People of the State of New York
Judge: Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.
Attorney: Sankeerth Saradhi (for appellant)
Attorney: Leonard Joblove (for respondent)
Attorney: Jean M. Joyce (for respondent)
Attorney: Ann Bordley (for respondent)

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-29
Lower court judgment date: 2023-06-14

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult criminal defense counsel
Speak with an attorney about whether any preservation exceptions or other procedural avenues exist to revisit the constitutional claims or to consider post-conviction relief.
2
Consider post-judgment remedies
Discuss with counsel whether a motion to vacate the plea, a CPL article 440 motion, or other post-conviction proceedings are appropriate given the circumstances.
3
Comply with sentencing and records requirements
Ensure compliance with the sentence imposed and verify how the youthful-offender adjudication affects records or collateral consequences, and explore record sealing/relief options with counsel.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender and imposing sentence; it did not rule on the constitutional claims because they were not properly preserved.
Does this mean the court ruled the youthful-offender adjudication was constitutional?: No. The court did not decide the merits of the constitutional arguments; it affirmed the judgment on procedural grounds because the issues were not preserved for appeal.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision directly affects the defendant, who remains adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced as ordered in the lower court.
Can the defendant raise these constitutional claims again?: Because the appellate court found the claims unpreserved, the defendant may be limited in raising them on appeal unless there is a valid basis (such as a recognized exception) to excuse lack of preservation or unless new proceedings permit 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 Treaston M. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02675

People v Treaston M.

2026 NY Slip Op 02675

April 29, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

The People of the State of New York, respondent,

Treaston M. (Anonymous), appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on April 29, 2026

2023-05723, (Ind. No. 74233/22)

Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.

Linda Christopher

Carl J. Landicino

James P. McCormack, JJ.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sankeerth Saradhi of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jean M. Joyce, and Ann Bordley of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Danny Chun, J.), rendered June 14, 2023, adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon his plea of guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his adjudication as a youthful offender, upon his plea of guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution for several reasons. None of the defendant's contentions in this regard are preserved for appellate review (
see

People v David
, 41 NY3d 90, 96;
People v Cabrera
, 41 NY3d 35, 38-39;
People v Davidson
, 98 NY2d 738, 739;
People v Luperon
, 85 NY2d 71, 78), and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

LASALLE, P.J., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph