PEOPLE v. ELIJAH (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bruna L. DiBiase, J.), rendered October 12, 2022, adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon his plea of guilty to robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 70141/21, and sentencing him to a term of probation, including Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities, Condition No. 15, requiring the defendant to undergo random drug and alcohol testing if directed by the Department of Probation, and 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, firearm or other weapon, or contraband found during the search, (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered October 12, 2022, adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon his plea of guilty to robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 70188/21, and sentencing him to a term of probation, including Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities, Condition No. 15, requiring the defendant to undergo random drug and alcohol testing if directed by the Department of Probation, and 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, firearm or other weapon, or contraband found during the search, and (3) a judgment of the same court, also rendered October 12, 2022, adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon his plea of guilty to robbery in the first degree under Superior Court Information No. 72311/22, and sentencing him to a term of probation, including Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities, Condition No. 15, requiring the defendant to undergo random drug and alcohol testing if directed by the Department of Probation, and 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, firearm or other weapon, or contraband found during the search.

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

Contrary to the People's contention, the record does not demonstrate 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).  The Supreme Court mischaracterized the nature of the appeal waiver by stating that the defendant's adjudications and sentences would be final, thereby suggesting that the waiver may be an absolute bar to the taking of an appeal (see People v. Matthews, 220 A.D.3d 719, 195 N.Y.S.3d 812;  People v. Boykin, 219 A.D.3d 499, 192 N.Y.S.3d 260).  Moreover, “ ‘the defendant's written waiver of the right to appeal misstated the applicable law and was misleading and further misstated that the defendant was giving up the right to [a waiver of costs, fees, and expenses] and [postadjudication] remedies in both state and federal courts separate from direct appeal’ ” (People v. Yentes, 233 A.D.3d 806, 807, 222 N.Y.S.3d 165, quoting People v. Morrison, 199 A.D.3d 707, 708, 153 N.Y.S.3d 902;  see People v. Vargas, 187 A.D.3d 1222, 131 N.Y.S.3d 218;  People v. Habersham, 186 A.D.3d 854, 127 N.Y.S.3d 775).  The court's oral colloquy was insufficient to cure the defects contained in the written appeal waivers executed by the defendant (see People v. Morrison, 199 A.D.3d at 708, 153 N.Y.S.3d 902).  Accordingly, the defendant's purported appeal waiver does not limit the scope of this Court's review (see generally People v. Savransky, 206 A.D.3d 764, 765, 167 N.Y.S.3d 835).

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

As part of the sentences of probation imposed on the defendant, the Supreme Court imposed conditions of probation, including conditions requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities (hereinafter Condition No. 14), requiring the defendant to undergo random drug and alcohol testing if directed by the Department of Probation (hereinafter Condition No. 15), and 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, firearm or other weapon, or contraband found during the search (hereinafter Condition No. 28).

“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 to do so’ ” (People v. Mensah, 221 A.D.3d 732, 733, 199 N.Y.S.3d 637;  see People v. Mantilla, 236 A.D.3d 925, 229 N.Y.S.3d 600).  “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;  see People v. Hakes, 32 N.Y.3d 624, 629, 94 N.Y.S.3d 221, 118 N.E.3d 883), including the condition that a defendant “[s]upport his dependents and meet other family responsibilities” (Penal Law § 65.10[2][f]).  The statutory list “does not purport to be complete, nor must every requirement be imposed in every case” (People v. Hale, 93 N.Y.2d 454, 461, 692 N.Y.S.2d 649, 714 N.E.2d 861).  Thus, Penal Law § 65.10(2)(l) also includes “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 at 629, 94 N.Y.S.3d 221, 118 N.E.3d 883).  “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’ ” (People v. Brazeal, 235 A.D.3d 890, 891–892, 227 N.Y.S.3d 700, quoting Penal Law § 65.10[5]).  “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. Mantilla, 236 A.D.3d at 926, 229 N.Y.S.3d 600, quoting People v. Mensah, 221 A.D.3d at 733, 199 N.Y.S.3d 637;  see People v. Hale, 93 N.Y.2d at 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’ and the defendant's particular circumstances, including his or her ‘background, history, and proclivities' ” (People v. Mantilla, 236 A.D.3d at 926, 229 N.Y.S.3d 600, quoting People v. Dranchuk, 203 A.D.3d 741, 743, 160 N.Y.S.3d 653, and People v. Hale, 93 N.Y.2d at 461, 692 N.Y.S.2d 649, 714 N.E.2d 861;  see People v. Brazeal, 235 A.D.3d at 892, 227 N.Y.S.3d 700).

Here, under the circumstances of this case, including that the defendant has no dependents, the Supreme Court improperly imposed Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities, as this condition was not individually “tailored to suit the probationer” (People v. Hale, 93 N.Y.2d at 461, 692 N.Y.S.2d 649, 714 N.E.2d 861;  see People v. Sobers, 235 A.D.3d 908, 227 N.Y.S.3d 694).  Accordingly, we modify the judgments by deleting Condition No. 14 from the conditions of probation.

The Supreme Court properly imposed Condition No. 15 and Condition No. 28.  These conditions were individually tailored in relation to the underlying offenses, which were violent in nature, and to the defendant's admitted near daily use of marijuana until a few months before sentencing.  Accordingly, these conditions were reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation and necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life (see People v. Hale, 93 N.Y.2d at 461, 692 N.Y.S.2d 649, 714 N.E.2d 861;  People v. Grandstand, 236 A.D.3d 817, 818, 227 N.Y.S.3d 750).

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

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and LOVE, JJ., concur.