Opinion
No. 163 KA 20-01434
03-22-2024
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. YANCEY J. FRUSTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (CLEA WEISS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (AMY N. WALENDZIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
JULIE CIANCA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (CLEA WEISS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (AMY N. WALENDZIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: LINDLEY, J.P., CURRAN, BANNISTER, GREENWOOD, AND NOWAK, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas E. Moran, J.), rendered September 8, 2020. The judgment convicted defendant upon a guilty plea of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On an appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.03 [3]), defendant contends that Penal Law § 265.03 is unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 U.S. 1 [2022]). Defendant failed to raise a constitutional challenge to the statute during the proceedings in Supreme Court, and therefore any such contention is unpreserved for our review (see People v Jacque-Crews, 213 A.D.3d 1335, 1335-1336 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1111 [2023]; see generally People v Davidson, 98 N.Y.2d 738, 739-740 [2002]; People v Reinard, 134 A.D.3d 1407, 1409 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1074 [2016], cert denied 580 U.S. 969 [2016]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, his "challenge to the constitutionality of [his conviction under the] statute must be preserved" (People v Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 404, 408 [2006], rearg denied 7 N.Y.3d 742 [2006]; see People v Cabrera, - N.Y.3d -, -, 2023 NY Slip Op 05968, *2-7 [2023]). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant's constitutional challenge as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
Although defendant also contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid, we note that resolution of that issue is of no moment inasmuch as his challenge to the constitutionality of Penal Law § 265.03 would survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Benjamin, 216 A.D.3d 1457, 1457 [4th Dept 2023]; see generally People v Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255 [2006]).