Second circuit affirms conviction and sentence of Frank James for 2022 subway shooting

October 11, 2024 Robert Abruzzese, Courthouse Editor
Frank James, whose life sentence for the 2022 subway shooting in Brooklyn was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Photo: Seth Wenig/AP
Share this:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the conviction and sentencing of Frank James, who pleaded guilty to 11 federal counts related to a 2022 attack on a New York City subway. 

The court’s summary order, issued on Thursday, affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where Judge William Kuntz sentenced James last year.

On April 12, 2022, James fired 32 rounds inside a crowded subway car, injuring 10 people after setting off a smoke grenade. Prosecutors called it a premeditated attack and cited his history of violent online posts.

Judge Kuntz explained the severity of the attack and the fear it caused and said that a life sentence was necessary to deter similar crimes. The Second Circuit upheld the sentence, agreeing that James’ arguments against the charges and sentencing were weak, given the strong evidence against him.

James had been charged with 10 counts of committing a terrorist attack or other violence against a mass transportation system and one count of using a firearm during a crime of violence. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the shooting, which took place on April 12, 2022, on a Manhattan-bound N train in Brooklyn.

In his appeal, James raised several arguments challenging the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines and the denial of certain reductions to his sentence. The panel of judges rejected each of these arguments.

James argued that the district court should have dismissed the original indictment, which included only two charges, before it was expanded. He claimed the initial charges didn’t meet the criteria for a crime of violence. However, the appellate panel ruled that by pleading guilty to the updated charges without reserving his right to appeal, he waived this argument.

James also challenged the use of a higher sentencing guideline for attempted murder, arguing he lacked intent to kill. But the district court found strong evidence of intent, citing his weapon choice, attack strategy and prior statements. The appellate court upheld this finding, stating it was not “clearly erroneous.”

The court upheld the two-level sentencing increase for obstruction of justice, finding that James lied about his intent during his plea despite evidence showing otherwise. The court rejected his claim that he was confused, citing a Supreme Court precedent allowing enhancements for intentional falsehoods.

The panel also agreed with denying James a reduction for accepting responsibility, noting that his perjury showed he hadn’t fully accepted accountability. Pleading guilty alone isn’t enough to get this reduction — defendants must show genuine acceptance, which James did not.





Leave a Comment


Leave a Comment