| People v Rosario |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 05651 [242 AD3d 527] |
| October 14, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| The People of the State of New York,
Respondent, v Javier Rosario, Appellant. |
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Frances Weil of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney (Katherine A. Triffon of counsel), for respondent.
Crimes - Appeal - Validity of Appeal Waiver
Crimes
- Possession of Weapon
- Lack of Standing for Second Amendment Challenge
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph A. McCormack, J., at speedy trial motion; Naita A. Semaj, J., at Second Amendment motion; Albert Lorenzo, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered January 6, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years of probation, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant validly waived his right of appeal (see People v Nunez, 220 AD3d 597 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 1004 [2024]). The court's colloquy tracked the model colloquy endorsed by the Court of Appeals in People v Thomas (34 NY3d 545, 567 [2019], cert denied 589 US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]). Defendant acknowledged that he signed the waiver after speaking with his attorney, and counsel acknowledged reviewing the waiver with defendant (see People v Colon, 190 AD3d 563 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 955 [2021]). The language in the colloquy and the written waiver did not suggest that defendant waived his right to appellate counsel (see Thomas, 34 NY3d at 559-560).
Defendant's valid appeal waiver forecloses review of his speedy trial and Second Amendment claims, and we decline to reach them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding to his Second Amendment challenge, defendant lacked standing by failing to apply for a license and, further, failed to establish that his conviction is unconstitutional (see e.g. People v Khan, 225 AD3d 552 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 1019 [2024]; People v Jackson, 225 AD3d 547 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 1002 [2024]; People v Johnson, 225 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2024], lv granted 42 NY3d 939 [2024]). Concur—Webber, J.P., Kennedy, Mendez, Rodriguez, Higgitt, JJ.