People v. Mead

• Decision Date: 13 November 2015
• Citation: People v. Mead, 133 A.D.3d 1257, 20 N.Y.S.3d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald E. MEAD, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

133 A.D.3d 1257

20 N.Y.S.3d 776

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Donald E. MEAD, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Nov. 13, 2015.

David J. Pajak, Alden, for Defendant–Appellant.

Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, WHALEN, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his Alford plea of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05[2] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v. Bradshaw, 18 N.Y.3d 257, 264–265, 938 N.Y.S.2d 254, 961 N.E.2d 645 ), and that waiver encompasses his challenge to the length of the term of probation imposed (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). To the extent that the written waiver of the right to appeal included nonwaivable rights, those rights are "excluded from the scope of the waiver [and] the remainder of the waiver is valid and enforceable" (People v. Williams, 132 A.D.3d 1291–1292, 17 N.Y.S.3d 360 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

We agree with defendant, however, that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the condition of probation that required him to sign a consent to waive his Fourth Amendment right protecting him from a search of his home on the ground that it is related to defendant's "drug/alcohol abuse," inasmuch as that condition was not part of the plea agreement (see generally People v. Leiser, 124 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 997 N.Y.S.2d 580 ). We also agree with defendant that the condition does not relate to "the probationary goal of rehabilitation" and thus is not enforceable on that ground (People v. Hale, 93 N.Y.2d 454, 460, 692 N.Y.S.2d 649, 714 N.E.2d 861 ; cf. People v. Schunk, 269 A.D.2d 857, 857, 703 N.Y.S.2d 768 ). Indeed, the presentence report indicated that the 51–year–old defendant, a first-time offender, does not have a history of drug or alcohol abuse and that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense. It is well established that "a probationer's home is protected by the constitutional requirement that searches be reasonable ... [A] probationer loses some privacy expectations and some part of the protections of the Fourth Amendment, but not all of both" (Hale, 93 N.Y.2d at 459, 692...