A New York appellate court has upheld the conviction of Dareious Akbar, who was found guilty of multiple charges, including two counts of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property. The ruling, made by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on November 13, 2026, confirms the lower court's judgment and addresses concerns raised by Akbar regarding sentencing delays and his waiver of the right to appeal.

The court's decision is significant as it reinforces the legal standards surrounding sentencing delays and the validity of appeal waivers in plea agreements. Akbar's case highlights how procedural issues can impact the outcomes of criminal proceedings.

Background

The case involves Dareious Akbar, who faced serious charges stemming from incidents that occurred prior to his conviction. He was charged with two counts of assault in the first degree, assault on a police officer, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree. Akbar entered a guilty plea to these charges, which were adjudicated in the Erie County Court under Judge Kenneth F. Case.

Akbar's appeal centers on his claim that an approximately eight-month delay in sentencing was unreasonable. He argued that this delay warranted vacating his conviction and dismissing the indictment. His legal representation was provided by the Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., with Kristin E. Markarian serving as counsel. The prosecution was represented by Michael J. Keane, the District Attorney of Buffalo, with April J. Orlowski assisting.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division, consisting of Justices Whalen, Lindley, Ogden, Nowak, and Delconte, unanimously affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court ruled that the delay in sentencing was not unreasonable, stating, "the delay was not protracted and was the result of motion practice, for which County Court imposed definite and reasonable deadlines."

Furthermore, the court found that Akbar's waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. The judges noted that "a court's demand of an appeal waiver as a condition of such a plea agreement gives rise to the appearance that the court is seeking to shield its decisions from appellate review or otherwise act as an advocate for the People." This ruling clarifies the circumstances under which appeal waivers can be considered valid.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for defendants in criminal cases, especially regarding the handling of plea agreements and the rights of defendants. The court's decision reinforces that delays in sentencing must be justified and that defendants should not be coerced into waiving their right to appeal without clear and valid reasons. The invalidation of Akbar's appeal waiver sets a precedent that could influence future cases where similar issues arise.

Additionally, the court ordered corrections to the certificate of conviction, ensuring that it accurately reflected the charges and sentencing details. This attention to detail emphasizes the importance of accurate legal documentation in the judicial process.

What's Next

While Akbar's conviction has been upheld, he may still have options for further legal recourse. The court's ruling does not preclude the possibility of an appeal to a higher court, although details about any such plans were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.