Summary
This Appellate Division decision affirms the defendant's conviction for criminal possession of a firearm following a guilty plea. The court held that the defendant's constitutional challenge to Penal Law § 265.01-b was unpreserved for appellate review because it was not raised in the trial court. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction to consider the claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant preserved a constitutional challenge to Penal Law §265.01‑b for appellate review.
- Whether the Appellate Division should exercise its interest‑of‑justice jurisdiction to consider the unpreserved constitutional claim.
Holdings
- The constitutional challenge was not preserved for appellate review, so the appeal is limited to the judgment of the trial court.
- The court declines to exercise its interest‑of‑justice jurisdiction to consider the claim.
Key quotations
“The defendant's contention that Penal Law § 265.01-b, to which he pleaded guilty, is unconstitutional in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (597 US 1) is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to raise a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court.”
“We decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to consider his contention (see CPL 470.15[3][c]; People v. Guzman, 227 AD3d 1107, 1108; People v. Johnson, 225 AD3d 626, 627).”
Factual background
The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm under Penal Law §265.01‑b. He later argued that the statute violates the Second Amendment as interpreted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, but he failed to raise that constitutional challenge before the trial court.
Procedural history
The trial court (Supreme Court, Kings County) entered a judgment on September 28, 2022, convicting the defendant after a guilty plea. The defendant appealed, asserting that Penal Law §265.01‑b is unconstitutional under Bruen, but did not raise the issue in the trial court.