People v. Pantojas
This text of People v. Pantojas (People v. Pantojas) 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
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Pantojas
2026 NY Slip Op 04152
June 30, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Javier Pantojas, Appellant.
Decided and Entered: June 30, 2026
Ind. No. 504/07|Appeal No. 6995|Case No. 2010-01624|
Before: Scarpulla, J.P., González, Rodriguez, Higgitt, Hagler, JJ.
Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Donner of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Brian Witthuhn of counsel), for respondent.
Scarpulla, J.P., González, Rodriguez, Higgitt, Hagler, JJ.
| 6995 | <sc>The People of the State of New York, <sc></sc></sc>Respondent, -against- <sc>Javier Pantojas</sc>, Defendant-Appellant. | Ind. No. 504/07 Case No. 2010-01624 |
|---|
Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Donner of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Brian Witthuhn of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Margaret L. Clancy, J.), rendered February 8, 2010, as amended March 3, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The majority of defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's comments in his summation are unpreserved (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]), and we decline to consider defendant's unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. As for those claims that are preserved, we agree with defendant that the prosecutor made repeated comments during summation that disregarded the court's directive to refrain from referencing the fact that defendant's sister was not called as a witness. However, we find that nothing said was so egregious as to have deprived defendant of his right to a fair trial (see People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st 1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]; see also People v Lithgow, 171 AD3d 517, 517 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1106 [2019]), particularly in light of the court's curative instructions and the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (see People v Giles, 188 AD3d 579, 579 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1056 [2021]).
There is no basis for reduction of sentence.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 30, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
People v. Pantojas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pantojas-nyappdiv-2026.