By Michele Evans / NYweeklyRecord.com / Date: 8/13/2026
Category: Criminal Courts / Appeals / Public Safety / Constitutional Law
NEW YORK CITY, NY –
A New York appeals court has affirmed Maurice Mayo’s weapons and menacing convictions, rejecting his effort to use the United States Supreme Court’s Bruen decision against the state law that criminalizes possession of a loaded firearm outside a person’s home or business.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, issued its decision on August 12 in People v Mayo. Mayo had been convicted after a nonjury trial in Richmond County Supreme Court of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and two counts of menacing in the second degree. The judgment, including the sentence imposed by the trial court, remains in place.
According to the appellate ruling, the case arose from an August 29, 2020 confrontation in which Mayo pointed a gun at and threatened a group of people. Those allegations were tested at trial and resulted in convictions. The appeals court did not retry the witnesses or reweigh the full factual record. Its task was to decide the legal claims Mayo raised against the judgment.
Mayo argued that Penal Law section 265.03(3) violated the Second Amendment after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen. That 2022 Supreme Court decision struck down New York’s former requirement that applicants show a special need for a public-carry license. Bruen changed the constitutional test courts use to evaluate firearm regulations, but it did not erase licensing systems or create a blanket right to carry a gun without complying with criminal law.
The Second Department first found that Mayo had not preserved his constitutional claim for appellate review. Preservation is a procedural rule with real consequences. A defendant generally must raise a specific objection in the trial court at a time when that judge can address it. Appellate courts routinely decline to decide claims that were not properly presented below, even when the issue later becomes central to the appeal.
The panel went further. It said that, even if the constitutional question were reviewed, the argument was without merit. The court concluded that Bruen had no impact on the constitutionality of New York’s criminal weapon-possession statutes. That conclusion defeated Mayo’s attack on the law as well as the procedural preservation problem.
The ruling is significant because it separates the right recognized in Bruen from possession of a loaded firearm in public without satisfying New York law. Penal Law section 265.03(3) targets possession of a loaded firearm outside the possessor’s home or place of business. In Mayo’s case, the statute was applied alongside findings that he pointed the weapon and threatened people. The appellate court found no Second Amendment basis to disturb the conviction.
The decision should not be overstated. It is not a new United States Supreme Court ruling, and it does not resolve every pending challenge to every New York firearm restriction. Courts examine the text, history, factual record and procedural posture of each claim. This panel decided Mayo’s appeal, found his challenge unpreserved and also rejected it on the merits.
Mayo separately argued that he had been denied the right to represent himself. The Sixth Amendment protects a defendant’s choice to proceed without a lawyer when the request is clear, unequivocal, knowing and voluntary. But a defendant does not have an automatic constitutional right to hybrid representation, in which the defendant and counsel divide control of the case.
The Second Department found that Mayo’s statement sought hybrid representation rather than an unequivocal request to proceed entirely on his own. On that record, the trial court was not required to conduct the full inquiry that follows a valid request for self-representation. The appeals court also rejected Mayo’s remaining claims and affirmed the judgment.
For criminal defendants, the ruling is a reminder that constitutional arguments can be lost through timing as well as substance. Trial lawyers must identify developing legal issues and place precise objections on the record. That responsibility became especially difficult in cases that began before Bruen and continued while firearm law was changing. Appellate review still depends on what was raised, how it was raised and whether the record permits the court to decide it.
For everyday New Yorkers, the case addresses the boundary between lawful gun rights and conduct that creates immediate fear. Menacing laws protect people from being placed in fear of physical injury through the display or use of a weapon. Weapon-possession laws impose separate requirements. A person can debate the reach of those statutes while recognizing that pointing a gun at a group is not the same factual setting as a law-abiding applicant seeking a carry license.
The court’s message was direct: Bruen did not supply Mayo with a basis to overturn these convictions. The state still bears the burden of proving criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt, defendants retain the right to raise constitutional challenges and judges remain obligated to apply controlling precedent. In this appeal, those safeguards were reviewed, the legal claims were rejected and the Richmond County judgment was affirmed.
Leave a Reply