People v A. (Anonymous), Keisy
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law — validity and scope of probation conditions and appeal waivers in a youthful offender (YO) sentence.
Accepted a guilty plea to attempted assault in the second degree, adjudicated defendant a youthful offender, imposed a term of probation with standard and special conditions (including Conditions No. 7 and No. 14), and obtained an appeal waiver.
Condition No. 14 of probation requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities.
It was not reasonably related to rehabilitation or necessary to ensure a law‑abiding life; the People conceded the error (citing People v Sobers). The court otherwise upheld Condition No. 7 under Penal Law § 65.10(2)(b) [allows courts to require a probationer to refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places or consorting with disreputable persons], and found the constitutional challenge to that statute unpreserved (see CPL 470.15[3][c] [authorizes intermediate appellate courts to review unpreserved errors in the interest of justice]).
Background
Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the second degree, was adjudicated a youthful offender (YO), and received a probationary sentence. The plea included a waiver of the right to appeal. The probation order contained Condition No. 14 (support dependents/meet family responsibilities) and Condition No. 7 (avoid injurious or vicious habits; refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places; do not consort with disreputable people). The record indicates the offense was committed at the urging of an associate.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, accepted the plea, adjudicated defendant a youthful offender, imposed probation with Conditions No. 7 and No. 14, and secured a waiver of the right to appeal as part of the plea agreement.
Appellate Division Reversal
Affirmed as modified: the panel deleted Condition No. 14 as not reasonably related to rehabilitation or necessary to ensure a law-abiding life. The court held the appeal waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, precluding review of the excessiveness of the sentence. Condition No. 7 was upheld as reasonably necessary under Penal Law § 65.10(2)(b) [allows courts to require a probationer to refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places or consorting with disreputable persons], particularly given the offense’s connection to an associate. The constitutional challenge to Condition No. 7 (and the statute) was unpreserved and declined in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15[3][c] [authorizes intermediate appellate courts to review unpreserved errors in the interest of justice]).
Legal Significance
Confirms that a valid appeal waiver forecloses review of an excessive sentence claim but generally does not bar challenges to probation conditions. Reinforces that special probation conditions must be reasonably related to rehabilitation or necessary to ensure lawful conduct, and that Penal Law § 65.10(2)(b) conditions are permissible when connected to the offender’s circumstances. Constitutional attacks on probation statutes or conditions must be preserved to be reviewed on appeal.
On direct appeal, courts will strike probation conditions not tied to rehabilitation or public safety, but will uphold conditions authorized by Penal Law § 65.10(2)(b) when supported by the record; appeal waivers bar excessiveness claims, and constitutional challenges must be preserved.