Opinion
04-04-2024
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William D. SCOTT, Defendant–Appellant.
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (David J. Klein of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jamie Masten of counsel), for respondent.
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (David J. Klein of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jamie Masten of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, P.J., Manzanet–Daniels, Kennedy, Mendez, Michael, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered December 8, 2022, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to two years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.
[1] Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied 589 U.S. —, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]). The combination of the court’s colloquy and the detailed written waiver that defendant signed after consultation with counsel satisfied the requirements of a valid waiver. The waiver forecloses review of defendant’s excessive sentence claim. In any event, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
[2] Defendant’s challenge to the condition of his probation requiring that he consent to searches of his person, vehicle, and place of abode by a probation officer for weapons and other contraband survives the appeal waiver (see People v. Arias, 210 A.D.3d 593, 179 N.Y.S.3d 47 [1st Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1109, 186 N.Y.S.3d 844, 208 N.E.3d 72 [2023]). Nevertheless, given that defendant used a weapon during the underlying offense, along with his history of violence and use of weapons, the imposition of the condition was "reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do so" (Penal Law § 65.10[1]; see People v. Hale, 93 N.Y.2d 454, 461, 692 N.Y.S.2d 649, 714 N.E.2d 861 [1999]). That the court did not orally pronounce the consent-search condition at plea or sentencing did not render it invalid since he was provided a written copy of all conditions of probation (see CPL 410.10[1]; see also People v. Gravino, 14 N.Y.3d 546, 559, 902 N.Y.S.2d 851, 928 N.E.2d 1048 [2010]).