PEOPLE v. CHARLES (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rhonda Z. Tomlinson, J.), rendered September 15, 2023, convicting him of assault in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence of a term of probation, including Condition No. 28, requiring the defendant to consent to a search by a probation officer of his person, vehicle, and place of abode, and the seizure of any illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, gun/firearm, or other weapon or contraband found.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting Condition No. 28 from the conditions of probation;  as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

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.”  The statute “quite clearly restricts probation conditions to those reasonably related to a defendant's rehabilitation” (People v. Letterlough, 86 N.Y.2d 259, 265, 631 N.Y.S.2d 105, 655 N.E.2d 146).

Here, the defendant was a first-time offender and was not armed with the weapon in issue at the time he committed the offense (see People v. Mensah, 221 A.D.3d 732, 733, 199 N.Y.S.3d 637;  cf.  People v. Brazeal, 235 A.D.3d 890, 891–892, 227 N.Y.S.3d 700).  Additionally, the defendant has not been assessed as being in need of alcohol or substance abuse treatment.  Under the circumstances, the consent to search condition of probation (Condition No. 28) was improperly imposed because it was not individually tailored in relation to the offense, and was not, therefore, reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that the defendant 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. Dranchuk, 203 A.D.3d 741, 742–743, 160 N.Y.S.3d 653;  People v. Acuna, 195 A.D.3d 854, 855, 145 N.Y.S.3d 831).

GENOVESI, J.P., WARHIT, VOUTSINAS and HOM, JJ., concur.