Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(the defendant loses the challenge)CriminalCourt of AppealsAppeal

People v. Carrington

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 1, 2026
Docket
Ind No. 71477/23|71477/23|Appeal No. 7122|Case No. 2024-00444|
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05603
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 2, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. : convicted the defendant upon his guilty plea to criminal possession of a weapon.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (the defendant loses the challenge)

TL;DR

  1. 1The case is about whether a defendant who pleaded guilty can challenge New York's gun licensing law.
  2. 2The court decided he cannot challenge the law despite his plea.
  3. 3The key reason is that the law's provisions don't violate constitutional rights.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Can the defendant raise a Second Amendment claim after a guilty plea?

    Holding · Yes, the waiver of the right to appeal does not prevent review of his Second Amendment claim.

  2. 2

    Is New York's 'good moral character' provision unconstitutional?

    Holding · No, the court found it consistent with historical firearm laws to prevent misuse by dangerous individuals.

Why it matters

This affects individuals who plead guilty but wish to contest related laws. It clarifies the scope of legal rights after guilty pleas.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Can he fight the gun law after pleading guilty?

  1. 1A man pled guilty to having a weapon but wants to challenge New York's gun law.
  2. 2He argues that the law's 'good moral character' rule isn’t fair.
  3. 3The court must decide if he can still fight this law after his plea.

Can the defendant challenge New York's gun licensing law despite a guilty plea?

Be the first juror

Parties

  • Prosecution

    People

  • Appellee

    Carrington

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
People v Carrington 2026 NY Slip Op 05603 October 1, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Damien Carrington, Defendant-Appellant. Decided and Entered: October 01, 2026 Ind No. 71477/23|71477/23|Appeal No. 7122|Case No. 2024-00444| Before: Moulton, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Michael, Hagler, JJ. Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Leanna J. Duncan of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Emily Aldridge of counsel), for respondent. [*1] Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Audrey E. Stone, J. on motion to dismiss; Seth Steed, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered November 13, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a one-year conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed. Defendant's waiver of the right to appeal does not foreclose from review his Second Amendment claim (see People v Johnson, — NY3d — , 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *1 [2025], cert denied — US —, 146 S Ct 2745 [2026]). Additionally, he has standing to raise his facial challenge to the constitutionality of New York's firearm licensing scheme, despite never having applied for a firearm license (see id. at *6). However, defendant's challenge to New York's "good moral character" provision (Penal Law § 400.00[1][b]) is unavailing, and he has failed to establish that the instant indictment is unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US 1 [2022]) (see Johnson, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528 at *7; see also United States v Rahimi, 602 US 680, 693 [2024]; Antonyuk v James, 120 F4th 941, 981-983 [2d Cir 2024], cert denied — US — , 145 S Ct 1900 [2025]). Defendant's broader challenge to New York's gun licensing regime fails as the Court of Appeals has already determined that it "does not implicate" Bruen's historical tradition framework (Johnson, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528). In any event, New York's "good moral character" provision does not unconstitutionally confer "open-ended discretion to licensing officials" to grant or deny a firearm license (Bruen, 597 US at 79 [Kavanaugh, J., concurring]), but rather, is akin to the consideration of "dangerousness," a provision that, historically, "our Nation's firearm laws have included" to prevent "individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms" (Antonyuk v James, 120 F4th at 991). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 1, 2026
View on CourtListener