Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bennett ARCHIBALD also known as Bennett Archinald, Defendant–Appellant.
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.
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 [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 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]).
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 AD3d 417 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 28 NY3d 1188 [2017]).
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, ––– NY3d ––––, ––––, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op 05968, *2–7 [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, ––– AD3d ––––, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op 01522 [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 [2022]) (see Drake, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op 01522; People v. Guity, 223 AD3d 598, 599 [1st Dept 2024]).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 1919
Decided: March 26, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)