People of the State of New York v. Leuris Morales
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law—probation conditions; whether mandatory surcharges and court fees may be imposed as a condition of probation after a guilty plea with a valid appeal waiver.
The trial court accepted guilty pleas on three indictments and imposed concurrent jail terms with five years of probation, including a probation condition requiring payment of the mandatory surcharge and court fees.
The probation condition requiring payment of mandatory surcharges and court fees under each indictment.
The condition was not reasonably related to rehabilitation or necessary to ensure a law-abiding life, and the challenge to that condition survives a valid appeal waiver (see People v Percy, 234 AD3d 619, 620 [1st Dept 2025]). The People did not oppose striking the condition. The court otherwise affirmed, holding the excessive-sentence claim was foreclosed by a valid appeal waiver (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 559 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]; People v Nunez, 220 AD3d 597 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 1004 [2024]).
Background
Leuris Morales pleaded guilty in three separate indictments to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two indictments) and conspiracy in the fourth degree (one indictment). The court imposed concurrent jail terms—six months on Indictment Nos. 2029/21 and 72246/22 and three months on Indictment No. 70750/23—each with five years of probation, and added a probation condition requiring payment of the mandatory surcharge and court fees. Morales appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive and challenging the financial condition of probation, despite having executed a valid appeal waiver.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, New York County (Ann Scherzer, J.) rendered judgments upon guilty pleas and sentenced Morales as stated, including a probation condition that he pay the mandatory surcharge and court fees.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, First Department modified the judgments to strike the probation condition requiring payment of surcharges and fees under each indictment, finding it not reasonably related to rehabilitation or necessary to ensure law-abiding conduct. The court otherwise affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding the excessive-sentence claim barred by a valid appeal waiver and, alternatively, finding no basis to reduce the sentence.
Legal Significance
Confirms that financial obligations such as mandatory surcharges and court fees cannot be imposed as probation conditions unless they are reasonably related to rehabilitation or necessary to ensure law-abiding behavior, and that challenges to such conditions survive a valid appeal waiver. Reinforces that a valid appeal waiver forecloses appellate review of excessive-sentence claims.
After a plea with a valid appeal waiver, defendants generally cannot pursue excessive-sentence challenges but may still contest probation conditions; surcharge/fee conditions will be stricken if not tied to rehabilitation or public safety.