PEOPLE v. HUTCHINS (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heidi C. Cesare, J.), rendered August 15, 2022, convicting her of criminal possession of a firearm, upon her 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, Condition No. 15, requiring the defendant to submit to any assessments and/or tests to determine the presence of alcohol or illegal substances if directed by the Department of Probation, Condition No. 24, requiring the defendant to participate in an alcohol, substance abuse, intervention, domestic violence or alternative to violence program as directed by the Department of Probation, Condition No. 25, requiring the defendant to refrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation, and Condition No. 28, requiring the defendant to consent to a search by a probation officer of her person, vehicle, and place of abode, and the seizure of any illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, firearm, or other weapon or contraband found.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting Condition Nos. 14 and 25 from the conditions of probation;  as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

“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. Dranchuk, 203 A.D.3d 741, 742, 160 N.Y.S.3d 653, quoting Penal Law § 65.10[1] ).  “The statute ‘quite clearly restricts probation conditions to those reasonably related to a defendant's rehabilitation’ ” (id. 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).

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 she will lead a law-abiding life (see People v. Aldea, 244 A.D.3d 745, 746, 243 N.Y.S.3d 525;  People v. Sobers, 235 A.D.3d 908, 909–910, 227 N.Y.S.3d 694).

Further, Condition No. 25, requiring that the defendant “[r]efrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation,” was improperly imposed because it was not reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation or necessary to ensure that she will lead a law-abiding life (see People v. Balogh, 245 A.D.3d 572, 574, 249 N.Y.S.3d 446;  People v. Seymore, 245 A.D.3d 423, 424, 245 N.Y.S.3d 225).  The record is devoid of evidence that the defendant had any history of gang affiliation or that the conviction was connected to gang activity in any respect.

However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court appropriately imposed Condition Nos. 15 and 24 based upon, among other things, the defendant's admitted regular use of marijuana, as those conditions were reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation and necessary to ensure that she will lead a law-abiding life (see People v. Elijah C., 241 A.D.3d 1361, 1364, 241 N.Y.S.3d 750;  People v. Fields, 84 Misc.3d 19, 20–21, 216 N.Y.S.3d 811 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists] ).

Further, the Supreme Court properly imposed Condition No. 28, as it was individually tailored in relation to the conviction of criminal possession of a firearm, and therefore, was reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation or necessary to ensure that she will lead a law-abiding life (see People v. Grandstand, 236 A.D.3d 817, 818, 227 N.Y.S.3d 750;  People v. Rogers, 235 A.D.3d 781, 782, 227 N.Y.S.3d 396).  Moreover, the portion of Condition No. 28 that allowed a probation officer, incident to a search of the defendant's person, vehicle, or place of abode, to seize illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia, was not unlawful, as a probation officer otherwise conducting a lawful search would be entitled to seize any contraband found regardless of that condition being in place (see People v. Grandstand, 236 A.D.3d at 818, 227 N.Y.S.3d 750;  People v. Rogers, 235 A.D.3d at 782, 227 N.Y.S.3d 396).

The defendant's contention regarding the imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Clemmons, 171 A.D.3d 1207, 96 N.Y.S.3d 886), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, VOUTSINAS and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.