PEOPLE v. MANTILLA (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mario F. Mattei, J.), rendered February 6, 2023, convicting him of aggravated criminal contempt, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was sentenced to a five-year term of probation, following his plea of guilty to aggravated criminal contempt.  The Supreme Court imposed a condition of probation (hereinafter Condition No. 28) requiring the defendant to consent to searches by a probation officer of his person, vehicle, and place of abode, and the seizure of any weapons or other contraband discovered during those searches.  The defendant appeals.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Bryant, 28 N.Y.3d 1094, 1096, 45 N.Y.S.3d 335, 68 N.E.3d 60;  People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145).  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 at 255–256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. Lowe, 216 A.D.3d 670, 671, 188 N.Y.S.3d 161).  However, the defendant's challenge to Condition No. 28 survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Brazeal, ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 00976;  People v. Dranchuk, 203 A.D.3d 741, 742, 160 N.Y.S.3d 653).

“Pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10(1), the conditions of probation ‘shall be such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him [or her] to do so’ ” (People v. Mensah, 221 A.D.3d 732, 733, 199 N.Y.S.3d 637).  “In Penal Law § 65.10(2), the Legislature set forth a list of conditions intended as rehabilitative” (People v. Joseph D., 226 A.D.3d 922, 923, 209 N.Y.S.3d 516), including “a catchall provision which allow[s] ․ courts to set ‘any other conditions reasonably related to [the defendant's] rehabilitation’ ” (People v. Hakes, 32 N.Y.3d 624, 629, 94 N.Y.S.3d 221, 118 N.E.3d 883, quoting Penal Law § 65.10[2][l]).  Sentencing courts may also impose conditions “requir[ing] that the defendant comply with any other reasonable condition ․ necessary or appropriate to ameliorate the conduct which gave rise to the offense or to prevent the incarceration of the defendant” (Penal Law § 65.10[5];  see People v. Hannah, 65 A.D.3d 1378, 1379, 887 N.Y.S.2d 140).  Therefore, sentencing courts may require a defendant to consent to searches by his or her probation officer for weapons or other contraband, so long as the condition is “reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life” (People v. Mensah, 221 A.D.3d at 733, 199 N.Y.S.3d 637;  see People v. Hale, 93 N.Y.2d 454, 461, 692 N.Y.S.2d 649, 714 N.E.2d 861).  To satisfy this standard, courts must ensure that the condition is “individually tailored in relation to the offense” (People v. Dranchuk, 203 A.D.3d at 743, 160 N.Y.S.3d 653) and the defendant's particular circumstances, including his or her “background, history, and proclivities” (People v. Hale, 93 N.Y.2d at 461, 692 N.Y.S.2d 649, 714 N.E.2d 861;  see People v. Acuna, 195 A.D.3d 854, 855, 145 N.Y.S.3d 831).

Here, the Supreme Court properly imposed Condition No. 28 upon the defendant.  Given that the defendant allegedly used a dangerous instrument (see Penal Law § 10.00[13];  see also People v. Vega, 33 N.Y.3d 1002, 1004, 102 N.Y.S.3d 140, 125 N.E.3d 805) in the commission of several of the underlying charged offenses, along with his history of violence directed towards the victim, the imposition of this condition was “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];  see People v. Brazeal, ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 00976; People v. Scott, 226 A.D.3d 443, 443–444, 208 N.Y.S.3d 170).  To the extent that the defendant contends that the imposition of this condition was improper because it was not part of his plea agreement, his contention is without merit (see CPL 410.10[1];  People v. Gravino, 14 N.Y.3d 546, 559, 902 N.Y.S.2d 851, 928 N.E.2d 1048;  People v. Bermudez, 171 A.D.3d 777, 778, 95 N.Y.S.3d 839).

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered February 6, 2023.  Motion by the respondent, inter alia, to strike stated portions of the appellant's brief on the ground that they refer to matter dehors the record.  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 6, 2024, that branch of the motion which is to strike stated portions of the appellant's brief was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to strike stated portions of the appellant's brief is denied.

MILLER, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.