PEOPLE v. MEGGETT (2026)

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Anne Swern, J.), rendered December 7, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to concurrent terms of three years of probation, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of striking the condition of probation prohibiting defendant “from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia” or “having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation,” and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 559, 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]), which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim.  In any event, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant's challenges to two of his probation conditions as unrelated to his rehabilitation do not require preservation and survive his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Alvarez, 233 A.D.3d 619, 620, 224 N.Y.S.3d 62 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 961, 232 N.Y.S.3d 442, 258 N.E.3d 1215 [2025]).  In this regard, the court providently deemed the condition of defendant's 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)(a) and (b), as “reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do so” (Penal Law § 65.10[1]), given his lengthy criminal history, which included numerous drug-related convictions, and the multiple arrests in the instant case which resulted in the recovery of about 180 vials of crack cocaine (see e.g. People v. Wade, 242 A.D.3d 525, 241 N.Y.S.3d 55 [1st Dept. 2025];  People v. Lowndes, 239 A.D.3d 574, 575, 235 N.Y.S.3d 43 [1st Dept. 2025], lv denied 44 N.Y.3d 1012, 244 N.Y.S.3d 516, 271 N.E.3d 718 [2025]).

However, the probation condition requiring defendant to “[r]efrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation” must be stricken, as there is no evidence that defendant's crimes were connected to any gang activities or that he has any history of gang membership or gang affiliation (see e.g. People v. Holguin, 243 A.D.3d 419, 245 N.Y.S.3d 35 [1st Dept. 2025];  People v. Vasquetelles, 241 A.D.3d 1208, 242 N.Y.S.3d 589 [1st Dept. 2025]).  Accordingly, this condition was not reasonably necessary to further defendant's rehabilitative prospects based on his background and proclivities (see People v. Hale, 93 N.Y.2d 454, 461–462, 692 N.Y.S.2d 649, 714 N.E.2d 861 [1999];  see also United States v. Sims, 92 F.4th 115, 120, 126–29 [2d Cir. 2024]).

Defendant's valid appellate waiver forecloses review of his facial constitutional challenges to the probation conditions under the vagueness doctrine and the First Amendment (see People v. Berkley, 241 A.D.3d 1167, 1168, 240 N.Y.S.3d 22 [1st Dept. 2025]).  In any event, these claims are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice (see People v. Cabrera, 41 N.Y.3d 35, 42–51, 207 N.Y.S.3d 18, 230 N.E.3d 1082 [2023];  see generally People v. Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 404, 408, 813 N.Y.S.2d 27, 846 N.E.2d 457 [2006]).