Crimes - Appeal - Validity of Appeal Waiver

Crimes - Sentence - Probation - Probation Condition Reasonably Related to Rehabilitation

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jeffrey M. Zimmerman, J.), rendered May30, 2024, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of afirearm, and sentencing him to a term of three years of probation and imposing a crimevictim assistance fee of $75, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducingthe amount of the crime victim assistance fee to $25, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d545 [2019], cert denied 589 US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]). Thecombination of the court's oral colloquy with defendant, and the written waiver he signedafter consultation with counsel, established that defendant had been adequately apprisedof the appellate rights he was waiving (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]). The waiverforecloses review of his excessive sentence claim (see e.g. People v Liriano, 226 AD3d 520, 520 [1st Dept2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 1019 [2024]). As an alternative holding, we perceiveno basis for reducing defendant's sentence.

Defendant's statutory challenge to the condition of probation requiring him to "avoidinjurious or vicious habits; refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places; andnot consort with disreputable people" survives his waiver of the right to appeal and doesnot require preservation (seePeople v Lowndes, 239 AD3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2025]; People v Alvarez, 233 AD3d619, 620 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 961 [2025]). The courtprovidently deemed this condition reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation, giventhat he was found in possession of a loaded pistol and admitted to the Department ofProbation that he used marijuana on a daily basis (see Lowndes, 239 AD3d at575; see generally Penal Law § 65.10 [1], [2]).

Defendant's "constitutional as-applied challenges to the probation condition underthe First Amendment and the vagueness doctrine of due process under the Fifth andFourteenth Amendments" are foreclosed by his valid waiver of appeal (Lowndes,239 AD3d at 575; see alsoPeople v Williams, 227 AD3d 480, 481 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42NY3d 1022 [2024]). His constitutional claims are also unpreserved, and we decline toreview them in the interest of justice (see People v Cabrera, 41 NY3d 35, 42-51 [2023]).

The amount of the crime victim assistance fee imposed at sentencing exceeded theamount authorized by statute (see People v Rivera, 183 AD3d 415 [1st Dept 2020], lvdenied 35 NY3d 1069 [2020]; see Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a][i]). Accordingly, we reduce the crime victim assistance fee to the extent indicated. Wenote that the People do not oppose this relief. Concur—Moulton, J.P., Mendez,O'Neill Levy, Michael, Chan, JJ.