Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department reviewed a criminal conviction for possession of a firearm following a guilty plea. While the court found the defendant validly waived his right to appeal the sentence, it independently reviewed and modified the judgment by striking a probation condition requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet family responsibilities. The court held that the condition was not individually tailored to the offense or reasonably related to rehabilitation under Penal Law § 65.10(1).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive.
- Whether Condition No. 14 was improperly imposed because it was not reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation.
Holdings
- The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive.
- Condition No. 14 was improperly imposed because it was not individually tailored to the offense and was not reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation; the condition was deleted and the judgment affirmed.
Key quotations
“Pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10(1), conditions of probation 'shall be such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that [a] defendant will lead a law‑abiding life or to assist [the defendant] to do so'”
“The statute 'quite clearly restricts probation conditions to those reasonably related to a defendant's rehabilitation'”
Factual background
Dasean Sobers pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm in 2022 and received a three‑year term of probation. The probation order included Condition No. 14, which required him to support his dependents and meet other family responsibilities. Sobers appealed, contending that the sentence was excessive and that Condition No. 14 was improperly imposed.
Procedural history
The defendant was convicted in 2022 of criminal possession of a firearm, sentenced to three years of probation with Condition No. 14 requiring support of dependents. He appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive and the condition improperly imposed. The Appellate Division considered the validity of his waiver of the right to appeal and the reasonableness of the probation condition.