A New York appellate court has upheld the murder conviction of D'Andre Ellis, affirming a lower court's decision that found him guilty of second-degree murder and weapon possession. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled on June 30, 2026, that the evidence against Ellis was legally sufficient. This ruling affects Ellis, who was sentenced to 17 years to life for murder and 10 years for each weapon possession count.
The case began when Ellis was accused of murder in connection with a shooting incident. The prosecution presented video evidence, which played a crucial role in the jury's decision. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of this evidence in affirming the conviction.
D'Andre Ellis was convicted after a jury trial in the Supreme Court of New York County, presided over by Judge Gregory Carro. The case number is 2023-02931, with the indictment number being 2260/19. Ellis was represented by the Rosenberg Law Firm, while the prosecution was led by District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. The case reached the appellate court after Ellis appealed his conviction, seeking to overturn the jury's decision.
The court's ruling confirmed that the jury's verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The opinion stated, "The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence." The judges on the panel included Manzanet-Daniels, Moulton, Shulman, Rosado, and O'Neill Levy.
The court detailed the evidence presented during the trial, highlighting the unbroken chain of video surveillance that captured Ellis's actions before and during the murder. Although some footage was of poor quality, higher quality cameras showed Ellis's facial features and distinctive clothing. The court noted, "the jury could also compare the person in the videos to defendant's arrest photos and to defendant himself in the courtroom." This comparison helped establish that Ellis was indeed the shooter.
In addition to the video evidence, the prosecution also presented cell phone records and cell site data that corroborated the video footage. The court found that the identification of Ellis by a police officer, who had prior familiarity with him, was valid and not suggestive. The officer had interacted with Ellis multiple times in the neighborhood where he lived.
The court also addressed procedural matters from the trial. It ruled that the dismissal of a juror who suffered an asthma attack was appropriate, as it would have delayed the trial beyond the statutory time limit. The court stated, "After a reasonably thorough inquiry, the court had sufficient information upon which to determine that the absence of the juror would delay the trial by far more than the statutory two-hour period."
Regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised by Ellis, the court noted that these issues should have been raised in a separate motion rather than on direct appeal. The judges found that Ellis had received effective assistance of counsel based on the existing record.
The court also ruled on the admissibility of a PowerPoint presentation used during the trial, which was authenticated by a witness. The court determined that the presentation did not improperly bolster the prosecution's case and was properly admitted as evidence.
In its conclusion, the court affirmed the lower court's decision and stated, "We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence." This ruling means that Ellis will continue to serve his sentence of 17 years to life for the murder conviction and 10 years for each count of weapon possession.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Ellis. It reinforces the use of video evidence in criminal cases and highlights the standards for juror dismissal and the evaluation of ineffective assistance of counsel claims. This ruling may influence future cases involving similar evidence and procedural issues.
Looking ahead, Ellis has the option to appeal this decision to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state. However, details about any related cases or further appeals were not available in the court filing.