The People of the State of New York v Steven Hernandez
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law; whether New York's firearm licensing scheme is unconstitutional after New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen, and whether an appeal waiver bars related appellate review.
The Supreme Court, Bronx County, accepted defendant's guilty plea to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment, while also imposing a surcharge and fees.
Only the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing were vacated; the conviction and prison sentence were otherwise affirmed.
The court held that defendant's facial challenge to the firearm licensing scheme could be reviewed despite the appeal waiver, but it failed on the merits. His as-applied age-restriction challenge was barred by the valid appeal waiver and also lacked merit. His challenges to Penal Law § 400(1)(b) [requires firearm license applicants to have "good moral character"] and Penal Law § 265.02(8) [prohibits certain large-capacity magazines] were unpreserved, and the magazine challenge was also moot because he was not convicted on that count. The surcharge and fees were vacated in the interest of justice, and the People did not oppose that relief.
Background
Steven Hernandez was indicted in Bronx County and ultimately pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. On appeal, he argued that New York's firearm licensing regime was unconstitutional under Bruen, including challenges to the age restriction, the "good moral character" requirement in Penal Law § 400(1)(b) [requires firearm license applicants to have "good moral character"], and the ban on large-capacity magazines in Penal Law § 265.02(8) [prohibits certain large-capacity magazines].
Lower Court Decision
The trial court entered judgment on July 16, 2024, convicting Hernandez upon his plea of guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing him to a three-year term, along with mandatory surcharge and fee assessments.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the judgment only to the extent of vacating the surcharge and fees in the interest of justice. It otherwise affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting the facial constitutional challenge, holding the as-applied age challenge barred by the appeal waiver, declining review of unpreserved claims, and finding the large-capacity magazine challenge moot because there was no conviction on that count.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a valid appeal waiver does not necessarily bar review of a facial constitutional challenge to New York's firearm licensing scheme, and that a defendant may have standing to raise such a claim. At the same time, the court distinguished as-applied challenges, holding that the appeal waiver foreclosed review of the age-based licensing claim. The ruling also underscores ordinary preservation rules for constitutional arguments and confirms that challenges to counts not resulting in conviction may be moot.
Hernandez kept the right to press a facial constitutional attack on New York's gun licensing framework, but he still lost because the court found no Bruen violation. His appeal waiver blocked his as-applied age challenge, his other constitutional arguments were unpreserved or moot, and the only relief he obtained was removal of the sentencing surcharge and fees.