People v. Holder

2024 NY Slip Op 00814

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: February 15, 2024
• Docket: Ind. No. 70723/22 Appeal No. 1673 Case No. 2022-05446
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Holder (2024 NY Slip Op 00814)

People v Holder

2024 NY Slip Op 00814

Decided on February 15, 2024

Appellate Division, First 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 and Entered: February 15, 2024
Before: Moulton, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.

Ind No. 70723/22 Appeal No. 1673 Case No. 2022-05446

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Diandre Holder, Defendant-Appellant.

Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Ben A. Schatz of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Emily A. Aldridge of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Tara A. Collins, J.), rendered November 14, 2022, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545 [2019], cert denied 589 US __, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]), which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim. In any event, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant's Second Amendment claim requires preservation (see People v Cabrera, — NY3d &mdash, 2023 NY Slip Op 05968 [2023]), and we decline to review the unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that on the present record, defendant has failed to establish that Penal Law § 265.03(3) is unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US 1 [2022]), or that he would be entitled to vacatur of his conviction on that basis.

Defendant's contention that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to preserve his Second Amendment claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters not reflected in the record and, thus, must be raised in a CPL 440.10 motion (see People v Gomez, 186 AD3d 422, 423-424 [1st Dept 2020]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: February 15, 2024