People v. Hennegan

2026 NY Slip Op 02286 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department · April 15, 2026 · No. 2019-04941

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed Maurice Hennegan’s convictions for murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The court held that the legal-sufficiency claim was unpreserved and, in any event, supported by legally sufficient evidence; it also rejected challenges concerning the weight of the evidence, substitution of counsel, and the sentence.

Holdings

  1. Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence because he did not specify at trial the grounds asserted on appeal.
  2. Even if considered, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt.
  3. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
  4. Defendant's pretrial pro se written letter requesting substitution of counsel, standing alone, did not require the trial court to relieve assigned counsel.
  5. Defendant abandoned his request for substitution of counsel by declining to provide further reasons and expressing no further dissatisfaction with defense counsel.
  6. The sentence imposed was not excessive.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether defendant preserved his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
  2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt.
  3. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
  4. Whether the trial court erred by declining to substitute assigned counsel based solely on defendant's pretrial pro se written request.
  5. Whether defendant abandoned his request for substitution of counsel by declining to explain his reasons and expressing no further dissatisfaction with counsel.
  6. Whether the sentence imposed was excessive.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (12)

  • People v. Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492(followed)
  • People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620(followed)
  • People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349(followed)
  • People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348(followed)
  • People v. Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410(followed)
  • People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495(followed)
  • People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644(followed)
  • People v. Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 100(followed)
  • People v. Mendoza, 239 AD3d 773, 773-774(followed)
  • People v. Molina, 208 AD3d 1641, 1642-1643(followed)

Showing top 10 of 12.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…