217 A.D.3d 683
N.Y. App. Div.2023Background:
- Defendant Benjamin Manners and an accomplice entered a barbershop and robbed three victims while displaying objects that appeared to be firearms.
- Manners pleaded guilty to first‑degree robbery and second‑degree criminal possession of a weapon; sentence was imposed and he appealed.
- At a suppression hearing Manners sought to suppress identification evidence; the court denied suppression and Manners appealed that denial.
- The grand jury initially dismissed one count and then sua sponte reconsidered and proceeded to vote again, raising a CPL 190.75(3) challenge.
- After the plea, Manners also raised a Second Amendment-based challenge to Penal Law § 265.03 in light of Bruen.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of identification evidence | Denial of suppression was proper; waiver of appeal would bar review | ID procedures were improper and identification evidence should be suppressed | Court found waiver invalid but suppression claim unpreserved because defendant failed to raise specific grounds at the hearing; in any event denial of suppression was affirmed |
| Validity of appeal waiver | Waiver precludes appellate review | Waiver invalid because plea colloquy/written waiver did not explain preserved appellate rights | Waiver was invalid under controlling Second Department precedent because defendant wasn't informed that some appellate review might survive the waiver |
| Grand jury reconsideration under CPL 190.75(3) | No CPL 190.75 authorization needed because grand jury reconsideration was sua sponte | Reconsideration effectively resubmitted charges requiring CPL 190.75 authorization | Grand jury's reconsideration was truly sua sponte; CPL 190.75 authorization not required; revote need not show 12 juror concurrence |
| Constitutionality of Penal Law § 265.03 post-Bruen | Statute remains constitutional; challenge unpreserved | Bruen undermines New York weapon statutes; §265.03 is unconstitutional | Challenge unpreserved and meritless here; Bruen did not invalidate New York's criminal possession statutes as applied in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Wilkins, 68 N.Y.2d 269 (N.Y. 1986) (limits CPL 190.75 resubmission bar to narrow circumstances where prosecutor withdrawal undermines statutory purpose)
- People v Montanez, 90 N.Y.2d 690 (N.Y. 1997) (permits truly sua sponte grand jury reconsideration; such reconsideration does not violate CPL 190.75)
- People v Davis, 17 N.Y.3d 633 (N.Y. 2011) (articulates CPL 190.75 objectives: curb prosecutorial excess and protect grand jury independence)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) (held New York's public‑carry "proper cause" licensing requirement unconstitutional)
- People v Reynolds, 25 N.Y.2d 489 (N.Y. 1969) (preservation rule: objections are required to preserve issues for appeal)
- People v McCoy, 109 A.D.3d 708 (2d Dep't 2013) (jurisdictional grand jury challenges need not be preserved)