The People of the State of New York v. Debra Graham
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law—validity of appeal waivers and the permissibility of probation conditions, including making payment of mandatory surcharge and fees a condition of probation.
Accepted a guilty plea and imposed five years’ probation (grand larceny fourth degree) and a one-year conditional discharge (petit larceny), with conditions including payment of $375 in mandatory surcharge and fees as a probation condition, standard conduct conditions, and an employment/education condition; obtained a written appeal waiver.
The condition of probation requiring payment of $375 in mandatory surcharge and fees was stricken; the purported appeal waiver was deemed invalid.
Payment of mandatory surcharge and fees as a probation condition is not reasonably related to rehabilitation; the appeal waiver was invalid because the court failed to explain that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from rights forfeited by a guilty plea and the record did not establish that defendant read or understood the written waiver.
Background
Defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree and petit larceny arising from the theft of a wallet containing licenses and bank cards. At probation intake, she reportedly admitted daily marijuana use. The sentencing court obtained a written appeal waiver and imposed probation with several conditions, including a requirement to pay $375 in surcharge and fees as a condition of probation and an employment/education condition. Defendant asserted on appeal that she could not work due to a physical disability, but her statements to probation and her receipt of Social Security benefits were unverified in the record. She did not request a certificate of relief from disabilities in the sentencing court.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered judgment on January 28, 2025, imposing five years of probation on the grand larceny count and a one-year conditional discharge on the petit larceny count. Conditions included: (1) payment of the mandatory surcharge, crime victim’s assistance fees, and DNA fees totaling $375 as a condition of probation; (2) a standard conduct condition to avoid injurious or vicious habits, refrain from unlawful or disreputable places, and not consort with disreputable people; and (3) an employment/education condition requiring the defendant to work faithfully at suitable employment or pursue approved study or vocational training. The court also obtained a written appeal waiver.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified to strike the probation condition requiring payment of $375 in mandatory surcharge and fees because it is not reasonably related to rehabilitation. The People did not oppose this relief. The court held that the appeal waiver was invalid where the court failed to explain that the right to appeal is separate from the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea and the record did not show defendant read or understood the written waiver. The sentence was otherwise affirmed: the standard conduct condition is expressly authorized by Penal Law § 65.10 (2)(a), (b) [authorizes standard probation conditions requiring avoidance of injurious or vicious habits, refraining from frequenting disreputable places, and not consorting with disreputable people] and is reasonably related to rehabilitation given the offense conduct and defendant’s admitted daily marijuana use. The challenge to the employment/education condition was unpreserved and unsupported by an adequate record. No appellate review was available of a certificate of relief from disabilities because none was requested below (see Correction Law § 702[3] [limits appellate review to determinations made on applications for certificates of relief from disabilities]).
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that an appeal waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and that courts must explain the right to appeal as separate and distinct from rights forfeited by a guilty plea. Clarifies that making payment of mandatory surcharge and fees a probation condition is improper because it is not reasonably related to rehabilitation, while standard conduct conditions tracking Penal Law § 65.10 may be upheld when supported by the record. Emphasizes the need for an adequate record to challenge probation conditions and that appellate review of certificates of relief requires a determination below.
An appeal waiver is invalid absent a proper on-the-record explanation distinguishing it from rights forfeited by a guilty plea, and courts may not condition probation on paying mandatory surcharges and fees; however, standard conduct conditions under Penal Law § 65.10 will be upheld when reasonably related to rehabilitation, and challenges must be preserved with an adequate record.