People v. Robles

Summary

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed Saint Robles's judgment of conviction for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The court held that his valid appeal waiver foreclosed review of his excessive-sentence claim, while his constitutional challenges to New York's firearm licensing scheme and large-capacity magazine prohibition were either unpreserved, subject to discretionary nonreview, or moot. The court also concluded that his ineffective-assistance claim was generally unreviewable on direct appeal and did not establish ineffective assistance on the record presented.

Holdings

1. A valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses review of defendant's excessive-sentence claim; independently, the court found no basis to reduce the sentence.
2. The valid appeal waiver did not foreclose review of defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of New York's firearm licensing scheme, and defendant had standing to raise that challenge.
3. Defendant's Second Amendment challenge was unpreserved, and the court declined to review it in the interest of justice. Alternatively, defendant failed to establish that the indictment was unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.
4. Defendant's constitutional challenge to the indictment based on the large-capacity ammunition-feeding-device charge was unpreserved, and the claim was also moot because defendant was not convicted of that offense.
5. The ineffective-assistance claim was unreviewable on direct appeal because it involved matters outside the record and had to be raised in a CPL 440.10 motion. Alternatively, to the extent the record permitted review, defendant was not deprived of effective assistance by counsel's failure to challenge New York's good-moral-character provision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendant's excessive-sentence claim was reviewable despite his valid waiver of the right to appeal.
2. Whether defendant's constitutional challenge to New York's firearm licensing scheme and indictment was preserved and reviewable on direct appeal.
3. Whether the indictment was unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.
4. Whether the challenge to the large-capacity ammunition-feeding-device charge was moot because defendant was not convicted of that offense.
5. Whether defendant could raise on direct appeal an ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to make a Second Amendment challenge.
6. Whether counsel's failure to challenge New York's good-moral-character provision deprived defendant of effective assistance.

Disposition

affirmed