| People v Sobers |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 00992 [235 AD3d 908] |
| February 19, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dasean Sobers, Appellant. |
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sam Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Michael Bierce, andDaniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (John T.Hecht, J.), rendered June 30, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a firearm, upon hisplea of guilty, and imposing sentence of a term of probation, including Condition No. 14,requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting Condition No. 14 from theconditions of probation; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
In 2022, the defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of afirearm. The defendant was sentenced to a three-year term of probation. A particular condition ofprobation (Condition No. 14) required the defendant to "[s]upport dependents and meet otherfamily responsibilities." The defendant appeals, contending that the sentence was excessive andthat Condition No. 14 was improperly imposed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the totality of the circumstances, the recorddemonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right toappeal (see People v Thomas, 34NY3d 545 [2019]). Although much of the discussion of the waiver of the right to appealtook place after the defendant had admitted his guilt, the appeal waiver was mentioned as being acondition of the plea bargain prior to the defendant's plea of guilty and admission of guilt. Thus,it cannot be said that the defendant "received no material benefit from his appeal waiver" or thatthe appeal waiver "was a gratuitous, after-the-fact additional demand asserted after the bargainhad already been struck" (People vSutton, 184 AD3d 236, 245 [2020]; see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094, 1095-1096 [2016]; People v Williams, 227 AD3d 480,481 [2024]). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court adequatelyexplained and the defendant acknowledged that he understood the nature of the right to appealand the consequences of waiving that right (see People v Cabral, 223 AD3d 839, 839 [2024]), and the court didnot mischaracterize the nature or scope of the waiver (see People v Headley, 197 AD3d 1329, 1330 [2021]). Thedefendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention thatthe sentence imposed was excessive (seePeople v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that Condition No. 14 was improperly imposed was not [*2]required to be preserved for appellate review and is not precludedby his waiver of the right to appeal (seePeople v Dranchuk, 203 AD3d 741, 742 [2022]).
"Pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10 (1), conditions of probation 'shall be such as thecourt, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that [a] defendant will lead alaw-abiding life or to assist [the defendant] to do so' " (People v Dranchuk, 203AD3d at 742, quoting Penal Law § 65.10 [1]; see People v Hakes, 32 NY3d 624, 628 [2018]). "The statute 'quiteclearly restricts probation conditions to those reasonably related to a defendant'srehabilitation' " (People v Dranchuk, 203 AD3d at 742-743, quoting People vLetterlough, 86 NY2d 259, 265 [1995]; see People v Mensah, 221 AD3d 732, 733 [2023]).
Here, under the circumstances of this case, Condition No. 14, requiring that the defendant"[s]upport dependents and meet other family responsibilities," was improperly imposed becauseit was not individually tailored in relation to the offense and therefore, was not reasonably relatedto the defendant's rehabilitation or necessary to insure that he will lead a law-abiding life (seePeople v Hale, 93 NY2d 454, 461 [1999]; People v Mensah, 221 AD3d at 733).
The defendant's remaining contention need not be reached in light of our determination.Chambers, J.P., Christopher, Love and Hom, JJ., concur.