PEOPLE v. CARRASQUILLO (2025)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Connie Morales, J.), rendered May 16, 2024, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years' probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, as the court failed to adequately explain the nature of the appellate rights he was waiving (see e.g. People v. Coleman, 225 A.D.3d 477, 477, 205 N.Y.S.3d 90 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 1001, 213 N.Y.S.3d 234, 236 N.E.3d 1252 [2024];  People v. Floyd, 220 A.D.3d 497, 497, 197 N.Y.S.3d 507 [1st Dept. 2023]).  The court “did not make clear, expressly or tacitly,” that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242–243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) constitutional rights that defendant was automatically forfeiting with the plea (People v. Trulove, 238 A.D.3d 55, 62, 228 N.Y.S.3d 173 [1st Dept. 2025]).  Furthermore, the court mischaracterized the finality of the waiver (People v. Bonilla, 211 A.D.3d 614, 615, 180 N.Y.S.3d 162 [1st Dept. 2022]) and did not confirm that defendant had read and understood the written waiver or discussed the written waiver with his counsel (see e.g. People v. Thorne, 207 A.D.3d 73, 77, 169 N.Y.S.3d 63 [1st Dept. 2022]).  Under these circumstances, the record does not show that defendant's purported waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.  Nevertheless, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

As to the legality of the conditions of defendant's probation, defendant was not required to preserve those statutory challenges (see e.g. People v. Hakes, 32 N.Y.3d 624, 628 n. 3, 94 N.Y.S.3d 221, 118 N.E.3d 883 [2018];  People v. Johnson, 234 A.D.3d 503, 504, 224 N.Y.S.3d 389 [1st Dept. 2025], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 1009, 234 N.Y.S.3d 790, 261 N.E.3d 925 [2025]).  Although the challenges are properly before us, we reject them on the merits.  Defendant was convicted of possessing a knife with intent to use it against the victim (see e.g. People v. Rivera, 239 A.D.3d 521, 522, 233 N.Y.S.3d 305 [1st Dept. 2025];  Johnson, 234 A.D.3d at 504, 224 N.Y.S.3d 389), was assessed by the Department of Probation as being in need of substance abuse treatment (People v. Velardo, 228 A.D.3d 520, 521, 211 N.Y.S.3d 382 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 930, 216 N.Y.S.3d 112, 240 N.E.3d 831 [2024]), and had an extensive criminal history of drug-related offenses (cf.  People v. Arias, 210 A.D.3d 593, 594, 179 N.Y.S.3d 47 [1st Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1109, 186 N.Y.S.3d 844, 208 N.E.3d 72 [2023]).  As a result, the condition requiring that defendant consent to searches of his person, vehicle, and place of abode for weapons, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and other contraband was reasonably related to his rehabilitation.

Moreover, the condition requiring defendant to “avoid injurious or vicious habits;  refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places;  and not consort with disreputable people” was reasonably related to his rehabilitation in light of, among other circumstances, his admissions to the Department of Probation of ongoing heroin abuse and daily marijuana use (see Penal Law § 65.10[1], [2];  People v. Lowndes, 239 A.D.3d 574, 575, 235 N.Y.S.3d 43 [1st Dept. 2025]).

Defendant's constitutional challenges to this condition under the First Amendment and the vagueness doctrine of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are unpreserved (see Lowndes, 239 A.D.3d at 575, 235 N.Y.S.3d 43;  People v. Cabrera, 41 N.Y.3d 35, 42–51, 207 N.Y.S.3d 18, 230 N.E.3d 1082 [2023]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.  As an alternative holding, we find them to be unavailing.