In People v J.A., the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed two convictions against J.A. for grand larceny in the third and fourth degrees and immigrant assistance services fraud in the first degree. J.A. had entered guilty pleas and was sentenced to concurrent terms of probation by the Kings County Supreme Court.
On appeal, he challenged two specific probation conditions: one requiring him to support his dependents and meet other family responsibilities (Condition No. 14), and another requiring him to consent to searches by probation officers of his person, vehicle, and residence for contraband (Condition No. 28).
The AD2 upheld both conditions. Condition No. 14 was deemed appropriate under Penal Law § 65.10(2)(f), as J.A. had children to support. His constitutional challenge to the broader language about “other family responsibilities” was unpreserved for appellate review and was not addressed further.
Condition No. 28 was also upheld. The court emphasized that probation conditions must be reasonably related to rehabilitation and tailored to the defendant’s offense and personal circumstances. Given that J.A.’s offenses involved wrongful possession of passports, the search condition was considered relevant and lawful. The court found it individually tailored and necessary to ensure J.A. would lead a law-abiding life.
Finally, the court held that the sentences imposed were not excessive. The decision reflects the judiciary’s discretion in crafting probation terms that align with statutory guidance and the defendant’s rehabilitative needs.
Come on, man! Your sentence reads "probation," not "vacation!"
# # #
DECISION