People v. Bowers
Docket Ind No. 74425/22|Appeal No. 6547|Case No. 2023-04172|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02797
- Docket numbers
- Ind No74425/22Appeal No6547Case No2023-04172
Appeal from judgment of conviction following a guilty plea and sentencing in Supreme Court, Bronx County
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Bronx County conviction and sentence. Defendant Kshawn Bowers pleaded guilty to petit larceny and was sentenced to three years' probation. The court held his appellate waiver was valid and therefore foreclosed review of his excessive-sentence claim, and it found no basis to reduce the sentence. The court declined to reach a preserved constitutional challenge to a probation condition in the interest of justice but, alternatively, rejected that challenge on the merits. It upheld a nonconstitutional challenge to the same probation condition as reasonably related to rehabilitation.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal and thereby foreclosed review of an excessive-sentence claim
- Whether probation condition 7 (avoid injurious or vicious habits; refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places; not consort with disreputable persons) violates defendant's constitutional rights
- Whether probation condition 7 is reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation (nonconstitutional challenge)
Court's Reasoning
The court applied precedent that a valid appellate waiver bars claims of excessive sentencing and found the waiver here to be valid. It declined to reach the constitutional challenge as unpreserved and not appropriate for review in the interest of justice, but alternatively found prior decisions controlling and rejecting such constitutional objections. For the nonconstitutional challenge, the court concluded the probation condition was reasonably related to rehabilitation because the defendant committed the theft working with others and had a history of associating with negative peers, so the restriction was appropriate and not arbitrary.
Authorities Cited
- People v Thomas34 NY3d 545 (2019), cert denied 589 U.S. 1302 (2020)
- Penal Law § 65.10(2)(a), (b)
- People v Cabrera41 NY3d 35 (2023)
Parties
- Appellant
- Kshawn Bowers
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Tara A. Collins
- Attorney
- Jenay Nurse Guilford (Center for Appellate Litigation)
- Attorney
- John Cheever (Bronx District Attorney's Office)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-05-05
- Original judgment date
- 2023-06-15
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult counsel about further review
If defendant wishes to pursue additional appellate relief, consult appellate counsel promptly to evaluate seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and to assess any narrow grounds not foreclosed by the waiver.
- 2
Comply with probation conditions
Follow the terms of probation, including condition 7, while consulting the probation officer or attorney if a condition's application becomes unclear or burdensome.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court affirmed the conviction and three-year probation sentence and upheld the contested probation condition as related to rehabilitation.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant Kshawn Bowers is directly affected; the decision also confirms how the First Department treats similar probation-condition and waiver issues.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Because the Appellate Division affirmed, the defendant could seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but the prior valid appellate waiver and the court's rulings may limit further review.
- What does the upheld probation condition require?
- Condition 7 requires avoiding injurious or vicious habits, refraining from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places, and not consorting with disreputable persons.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Bowers - 2026 NY Slip Op 02797 People v Bowers 2026 NY Slip Op 02797 May 5, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kshawn Bowers, Defendant-Appellant. Decided and Entered: May 05, 2026 Ind No. 74425/22|Appeal No. 6547|Case No. 2023-04172| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, O'neill Levy, JJ. Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Alec Miran of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (John Cheever of counsel), for respondent. Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Tara A. Collins, J.), rendered June 15, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and sentencing him to three years of probation, unanimously affirmed. Defendant validly waived his right to appeal ( see People v Thomas (34 NY3d 545, 567 [2019], cert denied 589 US 1302 [2020]). Defendant's valid waiver forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim. In any event, we perceive no basis to reduce the sentence. Defendant's constitutional challenge to probation condition 7, which requires him to "[a]void injurious or vicious habits [and] refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places" and not to "consort[] with disreputable persons" (Penal Law § 65.10[2][a], [b]), is unpreserved, and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice ( see People v Cabrera , 41 NY3d 35, 42 [2023]). As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits ( see People v Carasquillo , 242 AD3d 424, 425 [1st Dept 2025]). Defendant's non-constitutional challenge to condition 7 survives his waiver of the right to appeal and does not require preservation ( see People v Alvarez , 233 AD3d 619, 620 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 961 [2025]). Nonetheless, we find that this condition was reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation, given that he worked with others to steal store items and had a history of association with negative peers ( see People v Casillas , 245 AD3d 525, 526 [1st Dept 2026]; People v Rivera , 242 AD3d 421, 422 [1st Dept 2025]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: May 5, 2026