People v. Mead, 133 A.D.3d 1257 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Mead, 133 A.D.3d 1257 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kuhn (3×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant that the special condition requiring that he "not purchase, possess, or indulge in the use of alcohol or any products that contain alcohol" is not enforceable and must be stricken because it is not related to the probationary goal of rehabilitation ( see People v Saraceni , 153 AD3d 1559, 1560 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 913 [2018]; People v Mead , 133 AD3d 1257, 1258 [4th Dept 2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Blanco-Ortiz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
In light of defendant's lack of a prior criminal history and the lack of evidence in the record linking defendant's use of technology to the underlying offense, we conclude that those parts of condition 34 and the entirety of condition 35 do not relate to the goals of probation and thus are not enforceable on that ground ( see generally People v Mead , 133 AD3d 1257, 1258 [4th Dept 2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Saraceni
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant that the document he signed requiring him to consent to waive his Fourth Amendment right protecting him from unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, home, and personal property, and to submit to chemical tests of his breath, blood, or urine, is not enforceable because it was not related to the probationary goal of rehabilitation (see People v Mead, 133 AD3d 1257, 1258 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. King
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Unlike the defendant in People v Mead ( 133 AD3d 1257, 1258 [2015]), the 16-year-old defendant in this case had a history of drug and alcohol abuse beginning at a young age that resulted in, among other things, a referral to a treatment program from which defendant was unsuccessfully discharged.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Donerlson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
To the extent that defendant contends that the “written waiver of [the right to] appeal is unenforceable because it contained certain nonwaivable rights!, a]ny nonwaivable [rights] purportedly encompassed by the waiver are excluded from the scope of the waiver [and] the remainder of the waiver is valid and enforceable” (People v Williams, 132 AD3d 1291 , 1291 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1151 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Gibson, 147 AD3d 1507, 1508 [2017]; People v Mead, 133 AD3d 1257, 1258 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Donerlson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
To the extent that defendant contends that the “written waiver of [the right to] appeal is unenforceable because it contained certain nonwaivable rights!, a]ny nonwaivable [rights] purportedly encompassed by the waiver are excluded from the scope of the waiver [and] the remainder of the waiver is valid and enforceable” (People v Williams, 132 AD3d 1291 , 1291 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1151 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Gibson, 147 AD3d 1507, 1508 [2017]; People v Mead, 133 AD3d 1257, 1258 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Donerlson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
To the extent that defendant contends that the “written waiver of [the right to] appeal is unenforceable because it contained certain nonwaivable rights!, a]ny nonwaivable [rights] purportedly encompassed by the waiver are excluded from the scope of the waiver [and] the remainder of the waiver is valid and enforceable” (People v Williams, 132 AD3d 1291 , 1291 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1151 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Gibson, 147 AD3d 1507, 1508 [2017]; People v Mead, 133 AD3d 1257, 1258 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bailey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We conclude that defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Knox, 133 AD3d 1257, 1257 [2015]; see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-341 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bailey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We conclude that defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Knox, 133 AD3d 1257, 1257 [2015]; see generally People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-341 [2015]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Dehoyos
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, "[a]ny nonwaivable issues purportedly encompassed by the waiver are excluded from the scope of the waiver [and] the remainder of the waiver is valid and enforceable" ( People v Weatherbee , 147 AD3d 1526 , 1526 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1038 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Mead , 133 AD3d 1257, 1258 [4th Dept 2015]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Andrus
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · signal: compare · confidence low
Footnote 5: See People v Mendoza , 231 AD3d 1170 , 1170 (2d Dept 2024) (holding warrantless search condition properly imposed where the defendant "operated a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of approximately .25%, was convicted of, inter alia, aggravated driving while intoxicated with a child passenger and aggravated driving while intoxicated per se"); People v Lora , 236 AD3d 820 (2d Dept 2025) (finding search condition properly imposed where the defendant "operated a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of approximately .279% [and] was convicted of aggravated driving while in…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Donald E. Mead, Jr.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 13, 2015.
133 A.D.3d 1257
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered December 4, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his Alford plea, of attempted assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by striking as a condition of probation the requirement that defendant consent to the waiver of his Fourth Amendment right protecting him from a search of his home and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his Alford plea of attempted assault in the second[*1258] 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 NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011]), and that waiver encompasses his challenge to the length of the term of probation imposed (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). 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 AD3d 1291, 1291 [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 AD3d 1349, 1350 [2015]). 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 NY2d 454, 460 [1999]; cf. People v Schunk, 269 AD2d 857, 857 [2000]). 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 NY2d at 459). We therefore modify the judgment by striking as a condition of probation the requirement that defendant consent to the waiver of his Fourth Amendment right protecting him from a search of his home. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.