People v. Bynum
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 01556 (People v. Bynum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
| People v Bynum |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 01556 |
| Decided on March 20, 2024 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on March 20, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
HELEN VOUTSINAS
JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
2022-09665
(Ind. No. 72530/21)
v
Tyreik Bynum, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Elisabeth R. Calcaterra of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Ann Bordley of counsel; Darci Wen Siegel on the brief), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rhonda Tomlinson, J.), rendered November 22, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the imposition of a mandatory surcharge and fees; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that Penal Law § 265.03 is unconstitutional in light of the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US 1), is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court (see People v Manners, 217 AD3d 683, 685), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Fulton, 222 AD3d 991, 992; People v Moise, 220 AD3d 811, 811).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
As consented to by the People, and pursuant to the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, we modify the judgment by vacating the surcharge and fees imposed on the defendant at sentencing (see CPL 420.35[2-a][c]; People v Jaaber, 223 AD3d 685).
LASALLE, P.J., CHAMBERS, VOUTSINAS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 01556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bynum-nyappdiv-2024.