People v. Bassono
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law—validity of appeal waivers in plea proceedings and discretionary waiver of mandatory surcharges/fees for defendants under 21.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, accepted Bassono’s guilty plea to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and imposed sentence, including a mandatory surcharge and fees, after obtaining a written appeal waiver.
The appellate court held the appeal waiver ineffective to bar review and modified the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharge and fees.
The record did not show a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent appeal waiver because the waiver was not mentioned as part of the plea before the agreement, was discussed only after the plea allocution, the court conflated challenges to sentence legality with excessiveness, and the court did not confirm the defendant understood the written waiver. Additionally, CPL 420.35(2-a) [permits waiver of surcharges and fees for individuals under 21 at the time of the crime] authorized waiving the surcharge/fees, and the court exercised its interest-of-justice discretion to do so.
Background
Bassono pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Ind. No. 70564/22). At sentencing on December 13, 2022, the court imposed a mandatory surcharge and fees and obtained a written appeal waiver, though the waiver was raised only after the defendant admitted guilt and without confirming his understanding of the written form. Bassono, who was under 21 at the time of the offense, appealed, challenging the surcharge/fees and the validity of the appeal waiver.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County (Zoll, J.), accepted the guilty plea, imposed sentence including a mandatory surcharge and fees, and took a written appeal waiver without adequately advising the defendant pre-plea or ensuring he understood the written waiver.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division determined the appeal waiver was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and therefore did not bar appellate review. Exercising interest-of-justice jurisdiction and applying CPL 420.35(2-a), the court modified the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharge and fees. The conviction otherwise was affirmed.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces strict scrutiny of appeal waivers: courts must discuss the waiver as part of the plea bargain before the plea is entered, clearly distinguish between legality and excessiveness of a sentence, and confirm a defendant’s understanding of any written waiver. It also underscores that defendants under 21 at the time of the offense are eligible for discretionary waiver of financial surcharges and fees under CPL 420.35(2-a), which appellate courts may grant in the interest of justice.
An appeal waiver raised after a guilty plea and not adequately explained is ineffective; for defendants under 21, mandatory surcharges and fees may be vacated under CPL 420.35(2-a) in the interest of justice.