PEOPLE v. BONFANTE (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Jerry M. Iannece, J.), rendered February 27, 2023, convicting him of possessing a sexual performance by a child, 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.

Contrary to the People's contention, the record does not reflect that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264–265, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645).  The Supreme Court did not address the appeal waiver as part of the plea bargain being offered to the defendant before the agreement was reached, and it was not until after the defendant had already admitted his guilt that the Supreme Court discussed the waiver with the defendant (see People v. Ford, 225 A.D.3d 894, 206 N.Y.S.3d 189;  People v. Marcelle, 222 A.D.3d 883, 200 N.Y.S.3d 104;  People v. Adyl K., 187 A.D.3d 1208, 131 N.Y.S.3d 642).  Since the defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal, this Court is not precluded from considering the merits of the defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Marcelle, 222 A.D.3d at 883, 200 N.Y.S.3d 104 ).

However, 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).

As part of the sentence of probation imposed on the defendant, the Supreme Court imposed conditions of probation, including a condition requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities.

“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. Dranchuk, 203 A.D.3d 741, 742, 160 N.Y.S.3d 653, quoting Penal Law § 65.10[1];  see People v. Sobers, 235 A.D.3d 908, 227 N.Y.S.3d 694).  “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. Sobers, 235 A.D.3d at 909, 227 N.Y.S.3d 694).

Here, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improperly imposed Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to “[s]upport dependents and meet other family responsibilities,” as this condition was not individually “tailored to suit the probationer” (People v. Hale, 93 N.Y.2d 454, 461, 692 N.Y.S.2d 649, 714 N.E.2d 861;  see People v. Sobers, 235 A.D.3d at 909–910, 227 N.Y.S.3d 694).  Accordingly, we modify the conditions of probation by deleting Condition 14.

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

BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.