People v. Rodgers-Davis
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Rodgers-Davis
2026 NY Slip Op 04461
July 16, 2026
Appellate Division, Third 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
Justin Rodgers-Davis, Appellant.
Decided and Entered:July 16, 2026
CR-25-1520
Calendar Date: May 26, 2026
Before: Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P., Ceresia, Mcshan, Mackey And Ryba, JJ.
G. Scott Walling, Slingerlands, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Taylor Fitzsimmons of counsel), for respondent.
Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Kelly McKeighan, J.), rendered December 6, 2024, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of strangulation in the second degree.
In July 2024, defendant was charged by indictment with strangulation in the second degree and criminal contempt in the first degree. As relevant here, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis that the grand jury proceedings were impaired. According to defendant, on the date that he was produced to appear before the grand jury, he was escorted to the grand jury room by uniformed county sheriffs, while wearing prison garb and shackled, as the grand jurors waited in a room across the hall. Although defendant concedes that the door to this room was closed, he points to the fact that it had a window, and that he had to pass in front of the door to enter the grand jury room. Defendant averred that, as he walked by this door, his attorney stood in front of the window to obstruct the view of the grand jurors. As defendant exited the grand jury room, however, and although someone was still blocking the window, defendant maintained that he could see two people through the window. County Court denied this branch of defendant's motion, and defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to strangulation in the second degree in satisfaction of the indictment. He was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of four years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
We affirm. A defendant has a state and federal constitutional right to be free of visible physical restraints when appearing before a grand jury unless the People demonstrate a specific and reasonable basis for their use (see People v Cavanaugh, 245 AD3d 1068, 1069-1070 [3d Dept 2026]; People v Cain, 209 AD3d 124, 125-126 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1071 [2023]). Nevertheless, even were we to accept defendant's allegations in support of his motion, "[t]he brief and inadvertent viewing of defendant in shackles by two [grand] jurors was insufficient to" impair and prejudice the grand jury proceeding (People v Mattison, 97 AD2d 621, 623 [3d Dept 1983]; see CPL 210.35 [5]; People v Harper, 47 NY2d 857, 858 [1979]; People v McCollough, 135 AD3d 490, 490 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1002 [2016]; People v Goossens, 92 AD3d 1281, 1282 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 960 [2012]; People v Vaughn, 175 AD2d 414, 415 [3d Dept 1991]).
We also reject as academic defendant's contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, challenging the felony complaint and the proceedings in the local criminal court because those proceedings were superseded by a valid indictment (see e.g. People v Rodriguez, 195 AD3d 1237, 1238 n 4 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1061 [2021]; People v Williams, 155 AD3d 1253, 1255 [3d Dept 2017], lv denied 31 NY3d 1089 [2018]). Finally, nothing in this record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of defendant's [*2]counsel to negotiate a favorable plea agreement. Accordingly, we reject defendant's argument that he was not afforded meaningful representation of counsel (see People v Williams, 235 AD3d 1066, 1068 [3d Dept 2025]; People v Ward, 228 AD3d 1134, 1137 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1022 [2024]). Defendant's remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been rejected as unavailing.
Ceresia, McShan, Mackey and Ryba, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
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
People v. Rodgers-Davis (People v. Rodgers-Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.