People v. Telfair
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Telfair
2026 NY Slip Op 50711(U)
April 30, 2026
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Donald Telfair, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 9th And 10th Judicial Districts
Decided on April 30, 2026
2025-825 S CR
Present: : Joseph R. Conway, J.P., Timothy S. Driscoll, Maureen T. Liccione, JJ
Richard L. Herzfeld, for appellant. Suffolk County District Attorney (Karla Lato of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (F. Scott Carrigan, J.), rendered April 14, 2025. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposed sentence.
[*1]ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
On January 8, 2025, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03) under docket No. CR-016821- 24SU. Defendant was sentenced on April 14, 2025.
On appeal, defendant argues that his appeal waiver was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; that he was deprived of his right to due process when the District Court imposed an enhanced sentence without making further inquiry to determine whether he had violated a presentence condition of his plea agreement by being arrested for a new offense; that this court should apply CPL 420.35 (2-a) to vacate the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing despite defendant being over age 21 at the time of the subject offenses; and, alternatively, that [*2]CPL 420.35 (2-a) is unconstitutional because its limitation of relief to persons under age 21 at the time of the offense constitutes impermissible discrimination.
For the reasons stated in People v Telfair (___ Misc 3d ___, 2026 NY Slip Op ___ [appeal No. 2025-822 S CR], decided herewith), the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
CONWAY, J.P., DRISCOLL and LICCIONE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Jennifer Chan
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 30, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Telfair
2026 NY Slip Op 50711(U)
April 30, 2026
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Donald Telfair, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 9th And 10th Judicial Districts
Decided on April 30, 2026
2025-825 S CR
Present: : Joseph R. Conway, J.P., Timothy S. Driscoll, Maureen T. Liccione, JJ
Richard L. Herzfeld, for appellant. Suffolk County District Attorney (Karla Lato of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (F. Scott Carrigan, J.), rendered April 14, 2025. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposed sentence.
[*1]ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
On January 8, 2025, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03) under docket No. CR-016821- 24SU. Defendant was sentenced on April 14, 2025.
On appeal, defendant argues that his appeal waiver was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; that he was deprived of his right to due process when the District Court imposed an enhanced sentence without making further inquiry to determine whether he had violated a presentence condition of his plea agreement by being arrested for a new offense; that this court should apply CPL 420.35 (2-a) to vacate the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing despite defendant being over age 21 at the time of the subject offenses; and, alternatively, that [*2]CPL 420.35 (2-a) is unconstitutional because its limitation of relief to persons under age 21 at the time of the offense constitutes impermissible discrimination.
For the reasons stated in People v Telfair (___ Misc 3d ___, 2026 NY Slip Op ___ [appeal No. 2025-822 S CR], decided herewith), the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
CONWAY, J.P., DRISCOLL and LICCIONE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Jennifer Chan
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 30, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Telfair
2026 NY Slip Op 50711(U)
April 30, 2026
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Donald Telfair, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 9th And 10th Judicial Districts
Decided on April 30, 2026
2025-825 S CR
Present: : Joseph R. Conway, J.P., Timothy S. Driscoll, Maureen T. Liccione, JJ
Richard L. Herzfeld, for appellant. Suffolk County District Attorney (Karla Lato of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (F. Scott Carrigan, J.), rendered April 14, 2025. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposed sentence.
[*1]ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
On January 8, 2025, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03) under docket No. CR-016821- 24SU. Defendant was sentenced on April 14, 2025.
On appeal, defendant argues that his appeal waiver was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; that he was deprived of his right to due process when the District Court imposed an enhanced sentence without making further inquiry to determine whether he had violated a presentence condition of his plea agreement by being arrested for a new offense; that this court should apply CPL 420.35 (2-a) to vacate the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing despite defendant being over age 21 at the time of the subject offenses; and, alternatively, that [*2]CPL 420.35 (2-a) is unconstitutional because its limitation of relief to persons under age 21 at the time of the offense constitutes impermissible discrimination.
For the reasons stated in People v Telfair (— Misc 3d —, 2026 NY Slip Op — [appeal No. 2025-822 S CR], decided herewith), the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
CONWAY, J.P., DRISCOLL and LICCIONE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Jennifer Chan
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 30, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.