The New York Court of Appeals dismissed a criminal appeal without prejudice in *People v. Alba* after defendant Darling Alba was involuntarily removed from the United States due to convictions unrelated to his pending appeal. The court issued its decision Feb. 11, 2026, exercising discretionary authority established in previous cases involving deported defendants.
In a brief memorandum opinion, the court stated that Alba "has been involuntarily removed from the United States due to convictions unrelated to the present appeal." The court cited its discretionary authority to dismiss appeals when defendants are deported, referencing three key precedents: *People v. Diaz* (7 NY3d 831, 832 [2006]), *People v. Ventura* (17 NY3d 675, 680 [2011]), and *People v. Harrison* (27 NY3d 281, 288 [2016]).
The dismissal was granted "without prejudice," meaning Alba retains the right to move to reinstate his appeal should he return to the court's jurisdiction. This procedural safeguard acknowledges that while the defendant cannot currently participate in the appeals process, his legal rights are preserved for potential future enforcement.
The case presents a notable intersection of criminal law and immigration consequences. While Alba's removal from the United States stemmed from separate criminal convictions, it effectively terminated his ability to pursue his current appeal through New York's highest court. The court's decision reflects longstanding precedent that recognizes the practical impossibility of conducting meaningful appellate proceedings when defendants are no longer within the jurisdiction.
New York's Court of Appeals has consistently held that deportation creates significant barriers to effective appellate representation. The referenced precedent in *People v. Diaz* established the framework for dismissing appeals when defendants are removed from the country, while subsequent decisions in *People v. Ventura* and *People v. Harrison* refined the court's approach to these situations.
The "without prejudice" designation is particularly significant for defendants in Alba's situation. Unlike a dismissal with prejudice, which would permanently bar the appeal, this ruling preserves Alba's appellate rights. Should immigration circumstances change or should Alba lawfully return to the United States, he could petition the court to reinstate his appeal and continue pursuing his legal remedies.
Mark W. Zeno represented Alba in the appellate proceedings, while David Gagne appeared for the People. The case was decided unanimously, with Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan all concurring in the dismissal.
The decision underscores broader questions about access to justice for non-citizen defendants in the criminal justice system. When criminal convictions trigger immigration consequences, defendants may find themselves unable to fully exhaust their appellate remedies. This creates a practical barrier that can effectively truncate the appeals process for some defendants.
The court's approach in *Alba* reflects a balance between practical realities and preservation of legal rights. While acknowledging that deportation makes immediate appellate proceedings impractical, the court preserved Alba's ability to seek reinstatement should circumstances permit his return to New York's jurisdiction.
This procedural framework has been consistently applied across multiple cases involving deported defendants. The Court of Appeals has recognized that forced removal creates logistical challenges for both defendants and their counsel, making effective appellate advocacy difficult or impossible to maintain.
The timing of Alba's deportation, which occurred while his appeal was pending, illustrates how immigration enforcement can intersect with ongoing criminal proceedings. Federal immigration authorities typically prioritize removal of individuals with criminal convictions, which can interrupt state-level appellate processes.
For practitioners handling cases involving non-citizen defendants, *Alba* reinforces the importance of considering immigration consequences throughout criminal proceedings. The possibility of deportation during pending appeals adds another layer of complexity to criminal defense strategy and case management.
The Court of Appeals' decision in *Alba* maintains established precedent while preserving defendant's rights for potential future enforcement. The "without prejudice" dismissal ensures that should Alba return to New York's jurisdiction, his appellate rights remain intact and he can seek to reinstate his appeal.
This approach reflects the court's recognition that while practical considerations may necessitate dismissal of appeals when defendants are deported, fundamental due process concerns require preservation of appellate rights for potential future exercise. The decision continues the court's consistent application of this framework across cases involving removed defendants.