PEOPLE v. CHANCE (2025)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cori Weston, J.), rendered March 7, 2024, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a firearm, and sentencing him to three years of probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 563–566, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied 589 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]), as “[t]he combination of the court's colloquy and the detailed written waiver that defendant signed after consultation with counsel satisfied the requirements of a valid waiver” (People v. Hammond, 217 A.D.3d 484, 484, 191 N.Y.S.3d 22 [1st Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 997, 197 N.Y.S.3d 107, 219 N.E.3d 868 [2023]).  In any event, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant's challenge to the condition of his probation requiring him to “[a]void injurious or vicious habits;  refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places;  and ․ not consort with disreputable people” pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10(2) does not require preservation (see People v. Lowndes, 239 A.D.3d 574, 575, 235 N.Y.S.3d 43 [1st Dept. 2025]).  Nevertheless, the court providently exercised its discretion in finding this condition “reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do so,” given his possession of a firearm and bullets, criminal history of attempted petit larceny and aggression toward others, and reported daily use of marijuana (Penal Law § 65.10[1], [2];  see Lowndes at 575, 235 N.Y.S.3d 43).

Defendant's facial constitutional challenges to the probation condition under the First Amendment and the vagueness doctrine are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice (see People v. Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 404, 408, 813 N.Y.S.2d 27, 846 N.E.2d 457 [2006]).