PEOPLE v. SOBERS (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (John T. Hecht, J.), rendered June 30, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a firearm, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence of a term of probation, including Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting Condition No. 14 from the conditions of probation;  as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

In 2022, the defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a firearm.  The defendant was sentenced to a three-year term of probation.  A particular condition of probation (Condition No. 14) required the defendant to “[s]upport dependents and meet other family responsibilities.”  The defendant appeals, contending that the sentence was excessive and that Condition No. 14 was improperly imposed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the totality of the circumstances, the record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970).  Although much of the discussion of the waiver of the right to appeal took place after the defendant had admitted his guilt, the appeal waiver was mentioned as being a condition of the plea bargain prior to the defendant's plea of guilty and admission of guilt.  Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant “received no material benefit from his appeal waiver” or that the appeal waiver “was a gratuitous, after-the-fact additional demand asserted after the bargain had already been struck” (People v. Sutton, 184 A.D.3d 236, 245, 125 N.Y.S.3d 739;  see People v. Bryant, 28 N.Y.3d 1094, 1095–1096, 45 N.Y.S.3d 335, 68 N.E.3d 60;  People v. Williams, 227 A.D.3d 480, 481, 211 N.Y.S.3d 48).  Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court adequately explained and the defendant acknowledged that he understood the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right (see People v. Cabral, 223 A.D.3d 839, 839, 203 N.Y.S.3d 702), and the court did not mischaracterize the nature or scope of the waiver (see People v. Headley, 197 A.D.3d 1329, 1330, 151 N.Y.S.3d 905).  The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).

The defendant's contention that Condition No. 14 was improperly imposed was not required to be preserved for appellate review and is not precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Dranchuk, 203 A.D.3d 741, 742, 160 N.Y.S.3d 653).

“Pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10(1), conditions of probation ‘shall be such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that [a] defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist [the defendant] to do so’ ” (People v. Dranchuk, 203 A.D.3d at 742, 160 N.Y.S.3d 653, quoting Penal Law § 65.10[1];  see People v. Hakes, 32 N.Y.3d 624, 628, 94 N.Y.S.3d 221, 118 N.E.3d 883).  “The statute ‘quite clearly restricts probation conditions to those reasonably related to a defendant's rehabilitation’ ” (People v. Dranchuk, 203 A.D.3d at 742–743, 160 N.Y.S.3d 653, quoting People v. Letterlough, 86 N.Y.2d 259, 265, 631 N.Y.S.2d 105, 655 N.E.2d 146;  see People v. Mensah, 221 A.D.3d 732, 733, 199 N.Y.S.3d 637).

Here, under the circumstances of this case, Condition No. 14, requiring that the defendant “[s]upport dependents and meet other family responsibilities,” was improperly imposed because it was not individually tailored in relation to the offense and therefore, was not reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation or necessary to insure that he will lead a law-abiding life (see People v. Hale, 93 N.Y.2d 454, 461, 692 N.Y.S.2d 649, 714 N.E.2d 861;  People v. Mensah, 221 A.D.3d at 733, 199 N.Y.S.3d 637).

The defendant's remaining contention need not be reached in light of our determination.

CHAMBERS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LOVE and HOM, JJ., concur.