PEOPLE v. DOTEL (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Guy H. Mitchell, J.), rendered July 18, 2024, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three and one-half years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing, and otherwise affirmed.

Under the “totality of the circumstances,” defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was valid (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 US 1302, 140 S Ct 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]).  The waiver colloquy mirrored the model colloquy nearly verbatim (see People v. Nunez, 220 A.D.3d 597, 597–598, 197 N.Y.S.3d 61 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 1004, 213 N.Y.S.3d 222, 236 N.E.3d 1240 [2024]).  Furthermore, “[t]he court properly explained defendant's right to counsel on appeal, and did not imply that by waiving appeal, defendant would forfeit his right to appellate counsel for claims that survived the waiver” (People v. Yizar, 240 A.D.3d 416, 416, 235 N.Y.S.3d 47 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied, 44 N.Y.3d 985, 241 N.Y.S.3d 147, 267 N.E.3d 1215 [2025]).  Defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim (see Nunez, 220 A.D.3d at 597, 197 N.Y.S.3d 61).  In any event, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Based on our own interest of justice powers, we vacate the surcharge and fees imposed on defendant at sentencing (see e.g. People v. Lara–Medina, 195 A.D.3d 542, 145 N.Y.S.3d 804 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 993, 152 N.Y.S.3d 426, 174 N.E.3d 366 [2024]).