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, etc., Respondent, v. Lawrence STOKES, Appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Raymond L. Rodriguez, J.), rendered September 26, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence upon his adjudication as a second violent felony offender.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the defendant's adjudication as a second violent felony offender, and substituting therefor an adjudication that the defendant is a second felony offender; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently 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; People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenge to the constitutionality of the indictment charging him with, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02[1]) in light of the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (see People v. Felipe, 236 A.D.3d 920, 921, 228 N.Y.S.3d 328; People v. Victor, 235 A.D.3d 783, 226 N.Y.S.3d 592), as well as his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d at 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).
As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court improperly adjudicated the defendant a second violent felony offender, rather than a second felony offender, since the defendant's instant conviction was for a nonviolent felony (see Penal Law §§ 70.02[1][c]; 70.04[1][a]; 265.02[1]). Nevertheless, under the circumstances of this case, remittal for resentencing is not required, as the court properly sentenced the defendant as a second felony offender (id. § 70.06), instead of as a second violent felony offender, to the term of imprisonment promised at the time the defendant entered his plea of guilty. Accordingly, we modify the judgment by vacating the second violent felony offender adjudication and adjudicating the defendant a second felony offender (see People v. Nelson, 100 A.D.3d 785, 786, 953 N.Y.S.2d 673; see also People v. Joseph, 167 A.D.3d 776, 776–777, 89 N.Y.S.3d 278).
DILLON, J.P., WOOTEN, WARHIT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.
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: 2022-08186
Decided: September 10, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)