Opinion
03-26-2024
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bennett ARCHIBALD also known as Bennett Archinald, Defendant–Appellant.
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Abigail Everett of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Paul A. Andersen of counsel), for respondent.
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Abigail Everett of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Paul A. Andersen of counsel), for respondent.
Singh, J.P., Moulton, Friedman, Scarpulla, O’Neill Levy, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Guy H. Mitchell, J.), rendered December 8, 2022, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of three years, unanimously affirmed.
[1] Defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. There was no discussion on the record about the rights defendant was forfeiting, or any acknowledgement from defendant that he had signed the written waiver or that he was aware of its contents (see People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 283, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108 [1992]). Additionally, the court did not apprise defendant that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the trial rights that were being forfeited by defendant’s guilty plea (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 [2006]).
[2] Defendant’s Second Amendment challenge to New York’s prohibition against firearm possession by convicted felons (Penal Law § 400.00[1][c]) is moot, because defendant was convicted of possessing a large capacity ammunition feeding device, which is prohibited regardless of whether a person is licensed to carry a firearm (see People v. Ruiz, 146 A.D.3d 417, 43 N.Y.S.3d 743 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1188, 52 N.Y.S.3d 714, 75 N.E.3d 106 [2017]).
[3–5] Defendant did not preserve his Second Amendment challenge to New York’s ban on large capacity ammunition feeding devices (Penal Law § 265.02[8]) (see People v. Cabrera, 41 N.Y.3d 35, 39–50, 207 N.Y.S.3d 18, 230 N.E.3d 1082 [2023]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that on the present record, defendant has standing to raise his challenge because large capacity ammunition feeding devices are subject to a complete ban, rather than a licensing scheme (People v. Drake, 225 A.D.3d 504, 207 N.Y.S.3d 77 [1st Dept. 2024]). Nevertheless, as an alternative holding, we find that defendant has not established that the ban is unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022) (see Drake, 225 A.D.3d 504, 207 N.Y.S.3d 77; People v. Guity, 223 A.D.3d 598, 599, 204 N.Y.S.3d 43 [1st Dept. 2024]).