People v. James
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 01107 (People v. James) 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 James |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 01107 |
| Decided on February 26, 2025 |
| 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 February 26, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
CARL J. LANDICINO
DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.
2022-05435
(Ind. No. 81/13)
v
Clinton James, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sam Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Thomas B. Litsky and Timothy Pezzoli of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Wayne M. Ozzi, J.), rendered May 25, 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 affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, in light of the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US 1), is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court (see People v Cabrera, 41 NY3d 35, 41-51; People v Sargeant, 230 AD3d 1341, 1354-1355). We decline to review the defendant's contention pursuant to our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court violated CPL 245.25(2) by conditioning its plea offer on the defendant's waiver of further discovery is unpreserved for appellate review (see id. § 470.05[2]), and we decline to review that contention in the interest of justice.
CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, LANDICINO and GOLIA, 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
2025 NY Slip Op 01107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-james-nyappdiv-2025.