PEOPLE v. HERRERA (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Jerry M. Iannece, J.), rendered June 1, 2023, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence of a term of probation, including Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependants 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 defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 340–342, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344;  cf.  People v. Yakubov, 204 A.D.3d 1043, 1044, 165 N.Y.S.3d 355;  People v. Alston, 163 A.D.3d 843, 844–845, 81 N.Y.S.3d 167 ).  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, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;  People v. Morrow, 198 A.D.3d 922, 923, 152 N.Y.S.3d 840).

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), the 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’ ” (id., 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).

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. Sobers, 235 A.D.3d 908, 909–910, 227 N.Y.S.3d 694;  see also 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.

GENOVESI, J.P., WAN, VENTURA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.