In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York modified the sentencing of Steven Hernandez, who was convicted of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The court decided to vacate certain fees and surcharges imposed during his sentencing. This ruling could have broader implications for individuals challenging New York's firearm licensing laws.
The case, People v. Hernandez (Ind No. 70372/23), was decided on August 6, 2026. Hernandez's appeal raised important questions about the constitutionality of New York's firearm licensing scheme, particularly in light of recent legal changes regarding gun rights. The court's decision affects not only Hernandez but also others navigating similar legal challenges.
Background
Steven Hernandez was convicted in July 2024, with Judge Tara A. Collins overseeing the plea and Judge Seth Steed handling the sentencing. Hernandez's conviction stemmed from an incident involving a weapon, leading to his sentencing of three years in prison. Following his conviction, Hernandez sought to appeal the ruling, raising concerns about New York's firearm licensing laws.
The dispute centers on the constitutionality of these laws, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which challenged the state's restrictions on firearm possession. Hernandez's legal team argued that the state's licensing requirements were overly restrictive and infringed on individual rights.
The appeal reached the Appellate Division after Hernandez's initial challenges were denied in lower courts. His legal representation included the Center for Appellate Litigation, while the Bronx District Attorney's office represented the state. The case highlights ongoing tensions between state gun control measures and individual rights under the Second Amendment.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division, which included Judges Manzanet-Daniels, Moulton, Gesmer, Rosado, and Hagler, issued a ruling that modified Hernandez's sentence. The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing, stating, "Based on our own interest of justice powers, we vacate the surcharge and fees imposed on defendant at sentencing." This modification was made in the interest of justice, and notably, the prosecution did not oppose this relief.
However, the court also addressed Hernandez's challenges to the constitutionality of New York's firearm licensing scheme. The court ruled that Hernandez's valid appeal waiver did not prevent him from raising constitutional challenges. Still, it found that he did not successfully establish that the indictment was unconstitutional under the Bruen decision. The ruling stated, "Defendant has failed to establish that the instant indictment is unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen."
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for individuals facing similar legal issues regarding firearm possession in New York. By modifying the sentence and vacating the fees, the court has provided a precedent that could encourage other defendants to challenge their sentences based on similar grounds. The decision also clarifies that while individuals can challenge the constitutionality of firearm laws, they must do so effectively and within the proper legal framework.
Furthermore, the court's decision not to review Hernandez's as-applied constitutional challenge to the age restriction in the gun licensing scheme indicates that while some challenges may be valid, they must be presented appropriately. This ruling reinforces the importance of legal representation and the procedural aspects of challenging laws in court.
What's Next
Hernandez's case may not be over yet. While the appellate court has ruled on this matter, there is always the possibility of further appeals. Additionally, other cases challenging New York's firearm laws could be pending, as the legal landscape surrounding gun rights continues to evolve. The outcome of these cases may further shape the state's approach to firearm licensing and individual rights.