People v. Condon - Criminal Conviction Appeal

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 5th, 2026

Detected March 5th, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed a judgment convicting Joshua R. Condon of criminal sexual act in the first degree. The court found that the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was invalid due to overbroad language in both the oral colloquy and the written waiver.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, in the case of People v. Condon (2026 NY Slip Op 01249), affirmed a judgment of conviction rendered on March 6, 2023. The court specifically addressed the validity of the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal, finding it to be invalid because both the oral plea colloquy and the written waiver contained overbroad language that mischaracterized the scope of the rights being waived. Despite invalidating the appeal waiver, the court reviewed the severity of the sentence and, considering the defendant's criminal history and the favorable plea agreement, declined to reduce the agreed-upon sentence of 20 years imprisonment followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision.

This decision highlights the critical importance of precise language in plea agreements and appeal waivers. For legal professionals and courts, it underscores the need to ensure that oral colloquies and written documents clearly and accurately convey the rights being relinquished by a defendant. While this specific case affirmed the conviction and sentence, the invalidation of the appeal waiver demonstrates a potential avenue for defendants to challenge their sentences. Regulated entities, particularly those involved in criminal proceedings, should be aware of these procedural nuances when entering plea agreements.

What to do next

Review appeal waiver language in plea agreements for overbreadth
Ensure oral colloquies accurately reflect the scope of waived rights

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 5, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

People v. Condon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01249
Docket Number: CR-24-0220
Opinion
Authorities (0)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

People v Condon (2026 NY Slip Op 01249)
| People v Condon |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01249 |
| Decided on March 5, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |

Decided and Entered:March 5, 2026
CR-24-0220

*[1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

Joshua R. Condon, Appellant.**

Calendar Date:February 6, 2026
Before:Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, McShan and Corcoran, JJ.

Angela Kelley, East Greenbush, for appellant.

Shawn J. Smith, District Attorney, Delhi, for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Delaware County (Michael Getman, J.), rendered on March 6, 2023, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sexual act in the first degree.

Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court information charging him with criminal sexual act in the first degree. In satisfaction thereof, as well as another pending charge, defendant pleaded guilty to the charged crime in the superior court information, with the understanding that he would be sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 20 years, to be followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision. The plea agreement also purportedly required defendant to waive the right to appeal. County Court thereafter imposed the agreed-upon sentence to run concurrently with a sentence defendant was already serving. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. During the plea colloquy, County Court indicated that challenges to the voluntariness of the appeal waiver and the legality of the sentence were encompassed by the waiver, and the written waiver contained similarly overbroad language that defendant was waiving the right to appeal his "[s]entence." Given that both the oral colloquy and the written waiver "used overbroad language that mischaracterized the scope of the rights to be waived," defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid (People v Douglas, 226 AD3d 1162, 1163 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 970 [2024]; see People v Lewis, 236 AD3d 1178, 1178 [3d Dept 2025]). Accordingly, defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence is not precluded (see People v Gouge, 239 AD3d 1143, 1144 [3d Dept 2025]; People v Rhodes, 238 AD3d 1383, 1384 [3d Dept 2025]). However, given defendant's extensive criminal history and the favorable plea agreement which resolved a pending charge and avoided consecutive sentences, we cannot find that the agreed-upon sentence is unduly harsh or severe (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]; People v Terry, 226 AD3d 1215, 1216 [3d Dept 2024]), and we decline to reduce it in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, McShan and Corcoran, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.