People v. Archibald
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law—firearm possession and licensing; appellate procedure (appeal waivers and issue preservation); court-imposed surcharges and fees.
Accepted guilty pleas and imposed agreed-upon sentences, including mandatory surcharges and fees, for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm.
Only the mandatory surcharges and fees were vacated; convictions and sentences otherwise affirmed.
The appellate court exercised its discretion to waive surcharges and fees under CPL 420.35[2-a][c] [authorizes courts, in the interest of justice and upon specified findings, to waive mandatory surcharges and fees, including where the defendant was under twenty-one at the time of the offense], particularly given that the defendant was 19 and the People did not oppose. Other challenges failed: the excessive sentence argument was barred by a valid appeal waiver, and the constitutional challenge to New York’s firearm licensing scheme under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen was unpreserved under CPL 470.05[2] [requires that an issue be raised in the trial court to preserve it for appellate review] and meritless under People v. Johnson.
Background
At age 19, the defendant was arrested on two separate occasions for possessing a loaded firearm, indicted under two separate indictments (Nos. 73240/21 and 74115/21). He pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree on the first indictment and to criminal possession of a firearm on the second, and was sentenced pursuant to negotiated plea agreements.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, accepted the pleas and imposed the agreed sentences, together with mandatory surcharges and fees.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified the judgments solely to vacate the mandatory surcharges and fees (citing CPL 420.35[2-a][c] and People v. Jackson), and otherwise affirmed. The court held that the appeal waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (People v. Lopez), which foreclosed review of the excessive sentence claim. The Bruen-based constitutional challenge to New York’s licensing scheme was not barred by the waiver but was unpreserved (CPL 470.05[2]) and, in any event, without merit (People v. Johnson).
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that a valid appeal waiver precludes excessive sentence review; Bruen-based facial challenges to New York’s firearm licensing laws are not barred by such waivers but must be preserved and currently fail on the merits under People v. Johnson; and underscores appellate authority to vacate mandatory surcharges and fees in the interest of justice for young defendants under CPL 420.35(2-a)(c), especially when unopposed by the People.
In New York’s Second Department, defendants with valid appeal waivers will rarely obtain sentence review, unpreserved Bruen challenges will be rejected, but courts may—and will—vacate mandatory surcharges and fees under CPL 420.35(2-a)(c) where justice so requires, particularly for youthful defendants and when the People do not object.