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. JOEL R., Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert Lorenzo, J., at plea; Guy Mitchell, J., at sentencing), rendered June 7, 2024, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, adjudicating him a youthful offender, and sentencing him to time served, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied 589 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]), which forecloses review of his Second Amendment claim pursuant to New York Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022) (see People v. Velardo, 228 A.D.3d 520, 211 N.Y.S.3d 382 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 930, 216 N.Y.S.3d 112, 240 N.E.3d 831 [2024]). In addition, defendant's claim is unpreserved (see People v. Cabrera, 41 N.Y.3d 35, 42–51, 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 although defendant had standing to assert his Second Amendment challenge because, at 18 years of age, it would have been futile for him to apply for a license reserved for those 21 years old or older (see People v. Tarazona, 239 A.D.3d 544, 234 N.Y.S.3d 85 [1st Dept. 2025]), defendant has failed to establish that his conviction is unconstitutional under Bruen.
Defendant's contention that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to preserve his Second Amendment claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters not reflected in the record and, thus, must be raised in a CPL 440.10 motion (see People v. Gomez, 186 A.D.3d 422, 423–424, 129 N.Y.S.3d 60 [1st Dept. 2020]). As an alternative holding, we find that counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a Bruen-based claim (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 [2005]; People v. Diallo, 232 A.D.3d 427, 220 N.Y.S.3d 288 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 930, 229 N.Y.S.3d 79, 254 N.E.3d 623 [2025]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 4889
Decided: October 07, 2025
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)