People v. Michael Williams
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law and procedure — validity of appeal waivers; authority to waive mandatory surcharges and fees for defendants under 21.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, accepted Williams's guilty plea to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, required an appeal waiver as part of the plea bargain, and imposed sentence including mandatory surcharge and fees.
The appellate court modified the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharge and fees.
Because CPL 420.35(2-a) [permits the waiver of surcharges and fees for individuals who were less than 21 years old at the time of the offense], and in the exercise of interest-of-justice jurisdiction with the People’s consent, the surcharge and fees were vacated. The court otherwise enforced the valid appeal waiver, which barred review of the excessive sentence claim.
Background
Williams pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in Supreme Court, Kings County. As part of the plea bargain, he agreed to waive his right to appeal. Although much of the colloquy about the waiver occurred after he admitted guilt, the waiver was identified as a condition of the plea before the plea was entered. The court explained the nature and consequences of the appeal waiver, which Williams acknowledged he understood. He was sentenced and assessed a mandatory surcharge and fees.
Lower Court Decision
Judgment of conviction entered on October 19, 2022, upon a guilty plea, with sentence imposed including a mandatory surcharge and fees. The plea included a waiver of the right to appeal.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice to vacate the mandatory surcharge and fees pursuant to CPL 420.35(2-a), with the People’s consent; otherwise affirmed. The court held the appeal waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent under People v. Thomas, and thus barred review of the claim that the sentence was excessive under People v. Lopez.
Legal Significance
Confirms that an appeal waiver is valid where identified as a plea condition before the plea and adequately explained, even if much of the discussion occurs after the plea admission. Reinforces that a valid appeal waiver forecloses excessive-sentence review. Clarifies the availability of CPL 420.35(2-a) relief to vacate mandatory surcharges and fees for defendants under 21, which appellate courts may grant in the interest of justice with the People’s consent.
A properly obtained appeal waiver will bar excessive-sentence challenges, but courts may still modify a judgment to vacate mandatory surcharges and fees for defendants under 21 under CPL 420.35(2-a).