People of the State of New York v. Debra Graham
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal sentencing and probation conditions (New York)
Following a guilty plea to grand larceny in the fourth degree and petit larceny, the trial court imposed five years’ probation (grand larceny) and a one-year conditional discharge (petit larceny), with conditions including payment of $375 in surcharge and fees as a probation condition, avoidance of injurious habits/places/people, and employment or study requirements.
The condition of probation requiring payment of $375 in mandatory surcharge and fees as a condition of probation.
Payment of surcharges and fees as a condition of probation is not reasonably related to rehabilitation and does not assist in ensuring a law-abiding life, consistent with People v Percy; the People did not oppose striking this condition. The court also found the appeal waiver invalid because the judge failed to explain it was separate from trial rights and the record did not show defendant read or understood the written waiver, per People v Thomas.
Background
Defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree and petit larceny after stealing a wallet containing licenses and bank cards. She admitted daily marijuana use to the Department of Probation and asserted an unverified physical disability and receipt of Social Security benefits. The trial court included standard probation conditions, an employment-or-study requirement, and payment of $375 in surcharge and fees as a condition of probation.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Bronx County (Justice Kim M. Parker) accepted the guilty plea and sentenced defendant to five years’ probation on the grand larceny count and a one-year conditional discharge on the petit larceny count, imposing conditions including payment of surcharge and fees as a probation condition, avoidance of injurious habits/places/people, and an employment-or-study requirement.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified on the law only to strike the probation condition requiring payment of $375 in surcharge and fees; otherwise affirmed. The court held the appeal waiver was invalid because the judge did not explain that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from rights forfeited by the guilty plea, and the record did not establish defendant read or understood the written waiver. The court upheld the condition to avoid injurious habits/places/people as expressly authorized by Penal Law § 65.10 (2)(a), (b) [authorizing courts to impose conditions of probation, including avoiding injurious habits, places, and associates], and found the employment-or-study challenge unreviewable due to an inadequate record and lack of objection. The request regarding a certificate of relief from disabilities was not reviewable because no such application was made in the trial court under Correction Law § 702(3) [governing applications for and appellate review of certificates of relief from disabilities].
Legal Significance
Clarifies that in the First Department, making payment of mandatory surcharges and fees a condition of probation is improper because it is not reasonably related to rehabilitation; reaffirms strict requirements for a valid appeal waiver (it must be clearly explained as separate from trial rights and supported by a record showing the defendant understood any written waiver); confirms that standard probation conditions tracking Penal Law § 65.10 (2)(a), (b) are permissible; and underscores the need to create a factual record and preserve challenges to probation conditions and to request certificates of relief at sentencing to enable appellate review.
Appellate Division struck the probation condition requiring payment of surcharges/fees as unrelated to rehabilitation, found the appeal waiver invalid, but otherwise affirmed the sentence and upheld standard Penal Law § 65.10 conditions; unpreserved or unsupported challenges to probation conditions and certificates of relief will not be reviewed.