People v. Morales - Criminal Conviction Appeal
Summary
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York modified a judgment against Leuris Morales. The court struck the condition of probation requiring payment of surcharges and fees, finding it unrelated to rehabilitation.
What changed
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, modified a judgment concerning Leuris Morales. The court's decision, dated March 12, 2026, specifically struck the condition of probation that required the defendant to pay surcharges and fees. This modification was based on the finding that such a condition was not reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation or necessary for him to lead a law-abiding life.
This ruling impacts how probation conditions are assessed in New York. For legal professionals and courts, it reinforces that probation conditions must have a direct link to rehabilitation and public safety. While this specific case involved criminal convictions for drug sales and conspiracy, the principle applies broadly to the review of probation terms. The People did not oppose this specific relief, indicating potential agreement on the issue.
What to do next
- Review probation orders for conditions not reasonably related to rehabilitation or public safety.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
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.
March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note
People v. Morales
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01412
Docket Number: Ind No. 2029/21 72246/22 70750/23; ; Appeal No. 6071-6072-6073; Case No. 2023-02786 2023-02728 2023-02784
Combined Opinion
People v Morales (2026 NY Slip Op 01412)
| People v Morales |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01412 |
| Decided on March 12, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, First 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 12, 2026
Before: Kennedy, J.P., Gesmer, Mendez, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ.
Ind No. 2029/21 72246/22 70750/23| |Appeal No. 6071-6072-6073|Case No. 2023-02786 2023-02728 2023-02784|
*[1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Leuris Morales, Defendant-Appellant.**
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (David J. Klem of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Andrew H. Chung of counsel), for respondent.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Ann Scherzer, J.), rendered May 19, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree under indictment No. 2029/21, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 72246/22, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 70750/23, and sentencing him to concurrent jail terms of 6 months and 5 years of probation on indictment Nos. 72246/22 and 2029/21, and 3 months and 5 years of probation on indictment No. 70750/23, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of striking the condition of probation requiring him to pay surcharges and fees under each indictment, and otherwise affirmed.
Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 559 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]), which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim (see People v Nunez, 220 AD3d 597, 597 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 1004 [2024]). As an alternative holding, we perceive no basis for reducing his sentence.
"[D]efendant's challenge to the condition of probation requiring that he pay the mandatory surcharge and court fees survives his waiver of the right to appeal" (People v Percy, 234 AD3d 619, 620 [1st Dept 2025]). We strike the condition of defendant's probation requiring that he pay the mandatory surcharges and court fees as it is not reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation, nor necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life (id. at 620). We note the People do not oppose this relief.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: March 12, 2026
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get State Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when New York Appellate Division publishes new changes.