People v. Holman
Docket Ind No. 75322/23|Appeal No. 6469|Case No. 2025-00972|
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 02463
- Docket numbers
- Ind No75322/23Appeal No6469Case No2025-00972
Appeal from a judgment of conviction upon guilty plea and sentence of probation in Supreme Court, Bronx County
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Diondre Holman’s conviction following a guilty plea to fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon and his three-year probation sentence, but modified the judgment by striking the probation condition requiring payment of the mandatory surcharge and related fees. The court concluded Holman validly waived his right to appeal, which foreclosed review of his excessiveness challenge, but allowed review of his challenge to the legality of the probation condition and found that requirement unrelated to rehabilitation or public safety. Holman’s facial challenge to the "good moral character" licensing provision was unpreserved and declined in the interest of justice.
Issues Decided
- Whether defendant validly waived his right to appellate review of his sentence and other claims
- Whether the probation condition requiring payment of mandatory surcharges and fees is lawful and related to rehabilitation or public safety
- Whether a facial constitutional challenge to the "good moral character" provision of New York's gun licensing scheme can be reviewed despite a failure to apply for a license
Court's Reasoning
The court found the appeal waiver valid under governing precedent, which bars review of the excessive-sentence claim. The court nevertheless concluded the probation condition requiring payment of mandatory surcharges and fees is not reasonably related to rehabilitative needs or ensuring a law-abiding life, so it struck that condition. The facial challenge to the licensing "good moral character" requirement was unpreserved, and the court declined to reach it in the interest of justice, though it noted the claim would fail on the merits.
Authorities Cited
- People v Thomas34 NY3d 545 (2019), cert denied 589 U.S. 1302 (2020)
- People v Lowndes239 AD3d 574 (1st Dept 2025), lv denied 44 NY3d 1012 (2025)
- People v Percy234 AD3d 619 (1st Dept 2025)
Parties
- Appellant
- Diondre Holman
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Attorney
- Jenay Nurse Guilford (Center for Appellate Litigation)
- Attorney
- Joseph P. Tucker (Bronx District Attorney's Office)
- Judge
- Jeffrey M. Zimmerman (Supreme Court, Bronx County)
- Judge
- Manzanet-Daniels, J.P.
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Judgment rendered
- 2025-02-06
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Implement modified judgment
Court clerks should amend the judgment or probation order to remove the surcharge-and-fees payment requirement so the probation terms reflect the appellate decision.
- 2
Consult defense counsel about further review
If Holman or counsel wishes to seek further appellate review on the unpreserved licensing claim or other issues, they should evaluate whether to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
- 3
Advise probation officer
Probation authorities should be notified of the strike so they do not attempt to enforce payment of the removed fees as a condition of supervision.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court affirmed Holman's conviction and probation sentence but removed the probation condition that required him to pay mandatory surcharges and related fees.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant Diondre Holman is directly affected; more broadly, other probationers subject to similar fee conditions may rely on this reasoning to challenge such conditions.
- Why was the fee condition struck?
- The court concluded the fee condition was not related to ensuring the defendant leads a law-abiding life or to his rehabilitation, so it was unlawful as a probation condition.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- The decision arose from the Appellate Division; a further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals would require permission and is limited, especially given Holman's valid appeal waiver on most claims.
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 Holman - 2026 NY Slip Op 02463 People v Holman 2026 NY Slip Op 02463 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Diondre Holman, Defendant-Appellant. Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026 Ind No. 75322/23|Appeal No. 6469|Case No. 2025-00972| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, González, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ. Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Alec D. Miran of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Joseph P. Tucker of counsel), for respondent. Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jeffrey M. Zimmerman, J.), rendered February 6, 2025, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to three years of probation, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of striking the condition of probation requiring him to pay the mandatory surcharge and associated fees, 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]). This forecloses our review of his excessive sentence claim ( see People v Lowndes , 239 AD3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1012 [2025]). Alternatively, we find no basis to reduce his sentence. Defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal does not foreclose review of his facial constitutional challenge to the "good moral character" provision of New York's gun licensing scheme, and he has standing to bring it despite his never having applied for a gun license ( see People v Johnson , — NY3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *2 [2025]). However, the contention is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice ( id. ). Alternatively, this claim is unavailing ( see People v Martinez , 238 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1067 [2026]). Defendant's appeal waiver also does not foreclose his challenge to the legality of condition 10 of his probation and does not require preservation ( see Lowndes , 239 AD3d at 575). That condition requires defendant to "[p]ay the mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee, fine, sex offender registration fee, DNA databank fee, supplemental sex offender victim fee, and any other fee or surcharge imposed, as directed by the court." This condition is unrelated to ensuring that he leads a law-abiding life or to his rehabilitation ( see People v Percy , 234 AD3d 619, 620 [1st Dept 2025]). We note that the People do not oppose this relief. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 23, 2026