People v. Jachero

2025 NY Slip Op 05311

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: Ind No. 3736/15; Appeal No. 4794; Case No. 2017-02377
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Jachero (2025 NY Slip Op 05311)

People v Jachero

2025 NY Slip Op 05311

Decided on October 02, 2025

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: October 02, 2025
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Friedman, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, Chan, JJ.

Ind No. 3736/15|Appeal No. 4794|Case No. 2017-02377|

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

v

Christian Jachero, Defendant-Appellant.

Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Katherine M. A. Pecore of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Claire Lynch of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kirke A. Bartley, J.), rendered February 21, 2017, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of five years, and 3½ to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

We decline to dismiss defendant's appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine (see People v Tavares, 10 NY3d 227, 232 [2008]) even though he absconded and has not been contactable for more than two years. Because "disposition of the discrete [weight of the evidence] issue[] would result in either an affirmance or outright dismissal of the convictions, neither outcome would require the continued legal participation of defendants" (People v Ventura, 17 NY3d 675, 682 [2011]).

Defendant's guilt was supported by the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]; see also People Baque, 43 NY3d 26 [2024]). The testimony from three eyewitnesses, including that of a police officer who observed the assault, provided an ample basis for the jury to conclude that defendant was the individual who assaulted plaintiff with a glass bottle (see People v Tapia, 151 AD3d 437, 437-439 [1st Dept 2017], affd 33 NY3d 257 [2019], cert denied __US__ , 140 S Ct 643 [2019]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 2, 2025