PEOPLE v. DEGRAFFENRIED (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (William L. Deprospo, J., at plea;  Hyun Chin Kim, J., at sentence), rendered July 19, 2024, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree and attempted criminal contempt in the first degree under Indictment No. 347/22, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Hyun Chin Kim, J.) also rendered July 19, 2024, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 385/23, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

“Conditions imposed as part of a plea arrangement are valid if the parties agree to them and they do not violate any statute or contravene public policy” (People v. Avery, 85 N.Y.2d 503, 507;  see People v. Takie, 172 AD3d 1249, 1250).  A court is free to impose a condition as part of a plea arrangement requiring that a defendant cooperate with the Department of Probation (hereinafter DOP) by, among other things, truthfully answering questions and not denying guilt during a probation department interview (see People v. Hicks, 98 N.Y.2d 185, 189;  People v. Ramirez, 175 AD3d 569, 570).  “[T]he violation of an explicit and objective plea condition that was accepted by the defendant can result in the imposition of an enhanced sentence” (People v. Pianaforte, 126 AD3d 815, 816;  see People v. Ramirez, 175 AD3d at 570).

The defendant's contention that his due process rights and the principles of fundamental fairness were violated by the County Court's imposition of an enhanced sentence under Indictment No. 347/22 based on the defendant's violation of a plea condition is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Torres, 244 AD3d 1256, 1256–1257;  People v. Martinez, 235 AD3d 901, 902), and, in any event, is without merit.  During the defendant's plea allocution, the court advised the defendant that his plea was conditioned upon his appearance at his interview with the DOP and his cooperation during the interview, which included “being truthful with them about the facts and circumstances of the case.”  The defendant made statements during his interview with the DOP that contradicted his sworn admissions of guilt during his plea colloquy.  Accordingly, the court properly imposed an enhanced sentence based upon the defendant's violation of a condition of his plea agreement (see People v. Hicks, 98 N.Y.2d at 189;  People v. Suero, 243 AD3d 926, 927).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 NY3d 545;  People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248).  The defendant's valid waivers of his right to appeal preclude appellate review of his contention that the sentences imposed were excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255;  People v. Lawrence, 184 AD3d 587, 587).

CHAMBERS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.