People v. Rivas
Docket Ind. No. 74026/22|Appeal No. 6471|Case No. 2023-06240|
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 in Part, Reversed in Part
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02609
- Docket numbers
- Ind. No74026/22Appeal No6471Case No2023-06240
Appeal from a judgment of conviction following a guilty plea and imposition of probation conditions in Bronx County Supreme Court
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department modified a Bronx County judgment that had convicted Angel Rivas, upon a guilty plea, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentenced him to five years probation. The court struck six specific probation conditions because they were not reasonably related to Rivas's rehabilitation or necessary to ensure he would lead a law-abiding life. The court reasoned there was no evidence supporting dependence-support, gang affiliation, substance abuse, mental-health treatment, or ignition-interlock requirements, and the People did not oppose removing several of the conditions.
Issues Decided
- Whether specified probation conditions were reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation and necessary to ensure he would lead a law-abiding life.
- Whether probation conditions requiring support of dependents, gang-association prohibition, drug/alcohol testing and treatment, mental-health treatment, and an ignition interlock device were legally permissible given the record.
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the statutory and precedential requirement that probation conditions must be reasonably related to rehabilitation and necessary for lawful conduct. On the record, there was no evidence that Rivas had dependents, gang affiliation, substance abuse, mental-health issues, or any vehicle involvement related to the offense, nor did probation recommend such interventions. Because the challenged conditions were unsupported by facts tying them to rehabilitation or public safety, the court struck them while leaving the conviction and remaining sentence intact.
Authorities Cited
- Penal Law § 65.10(1)
- People v Vasquetelles241 AD3d 1208 (1st Dept 2025)
- People v Balogh245 AD3d 572 (1st Dept 2026)
Parties
- Appellant
- Angel Rivas
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Attorney
- Harold V. Ferguson, Jr. (The Legal Aid Society, New York)
- Attorney
- Mary McGarvey-DePuy (Bronx District Attorney)
- Judge
- Dineen Ann Riviezzo
- Judge
- Webber, J.P.
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-28
- Judgment rendered
- 2023-10-04
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Confirm modified probation terms
Rivas or his counsel should obtain a certified copy of the amended probation order to ensure the six struck conditions are not listed or enforced.
- 2
Notify probation officer
Inform the assigned probation officer and provide the court order so probation records and supervision plan reflect the court's modification.
- 3
Consult counsel if enforcement continues
If probation attempts to enforce any of the struck conditions, Rivas should contact his attorney promptly to seek enforcement relief or contempt proceedings as appropriate.
- 4
Consider closure or sealing issues
Discuss with counsel whether any steps should be taken to minimize collateral consequences of the conviction, such as available record relief or sealing where appropriate.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court do?
- The court kept Rivas's conviction and five-year probation sentence but removed six probation conditions that lacked a factual basis relating to his rehabilitation.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Angel Rivas is directly affected; probation officers and the Bronx District Attorney are affected insofar as the struck conditions can no longer be enforced.
- What does this mean going forward for Rivas?
- Rivas will not be required to comply with the six struck conditions, but all remaining probation terms remain in effect and enforceable.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- The People could seek further review by the New York Court of Appeals only if they meet the criteria for permission to appeal; Rivas generally would not need to appeal because the modification was favorable to him.
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 Rivas - 2026 NY Slip Op 02609 People v Rivas 2026 NY Slip Op 02609 April 28, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Rivas, Appellant. Decided and Entered: April 28, 2026 Ind. No. 74026/22|Appeal No. 6471|Case No. 2023-06240| Before: Webber, J.P., Mendez, Rodriguez, O'Neill Levy, Michael, JJ. The Legal Aid Society, New York (Harold V. Ferguson, Jr. of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Mary McGarvey-DePuy of counsel), for respondent. Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dineen Ann Riviezzo, J.), rendered October 4, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to five years of probation, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of striking the conditions of probation requiring defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities (Condition No. 14); submit to any drug or alcohol assessment and/or tests if directed by the Department of Probation (Condition No. 15); undergo medical/psychiatric treatment and/or remain in a specified institution if directed by the Department of Probation (Condition No. 22); participate in an alcohol, substance abuse, intervention, domestic violence or alternative to violence program as directed by the Department of Probation (Condition No. 23); refrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation (Condition No. 24); and install or have installed and maintain a functioning Ignition Interlock Device in his vehicle (Condition No. 27), and otherwise affirmed. Defendant's challenges to the legality of the conditions of his probation are not foreclosed by his appeal waiver ( see People v Alvarez , 233 AD3d 619, 620 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 961 [2025]) or the lack of preservation ( see People v Hakes , 32 NY3d 624, 628 n 3 [2018]; People v Vasquetelles , 241 AD3d 1208, 1209 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1054 [2025]). The six challenged conditions of probation must be stricken because they are "not reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life" ( Vasquetelles , 241 AD3d at 1209; see Alvarez , 233 AD3d at 620; see also Penal Law § 65.10 [1]). The probation conditions requiring defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities (Condition No. 14) and to refrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or its members (Condition No. 24) are not supported here. Considering that defendant lives with his parents and does not have any dependents, the condition that requires him to support dependents is not reasonably related to his rehabilitation. Nor is there any evidence that defendant had a history of gang affiliation or that his offense was connected to gang activity, and as such the condition related to a prohibition on gang affiliation is also not reasonably related to his rehabilitation ( see People v Balogh , 245 AD3d 572, 574 [1st Dept 2026]; Vasquetelles , 241 AD3d at 1209). Additionally, the People do not oppose striking these two conditions. The probation conditions requiring defendant to submit to drug and alcohol testing (Condition No. 15) and to participate in alcohol and substance abuse intervention, as well as treatment for domestic violence and alternatives to violence programs (Condition No. 23) are also improper here. Defendant denied the use of illegal drugs and alcohol, there is no evidence that defendant's offense involved any drugs or alcohol, the Department of Probation did not conclude that defendant required substance abuse or related treatment (s ee Balogh , 245 AD3d at 574), and there is no suggestion that defendant's crime involved domestic violence. The probation condition requiring defendant to submit to mental health treatment (Condition No. 22) must likewise be stricken. Defendant denied any mental health issues, the People do not allege or provide any evidence to dispute this, and the Department of Probation did not make any recommendation with respect to mental health treatment. The condition requiring defendant to install and maintain a functioning Ignition Interlock Device (Condition No. 27) should be stricken as well. There is no indication that defendant owns a vehicle, nor was one involved in the commission of defendant's crime. Additionally, the People do not oppose this relief, and, in any event, it appears that Condition No. 27 was not checked on the Conditions of Probation form. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 28, 2026