A New York appellate court has upheld the conviction of Patrick M. Rafferty for criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. The ruling, made by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on November 13, 2026, affects Rafferty, who had pleaded guilty to the charge as part of a plea agreement. The decision is significant as it reinforces the legal consequences of failing to meet the conditions of a plea deal.

The case, docket number 713 KA 25-01391, originated from a judgment rendered by the Steuben County Court on May 19, 2025. Rafferty's conviction stemmed from an agreement that allowed him to enter a drug treatment program instead of serving immediate jail time. If he successfully completed the program, he could withdraw his guilty plea and plead to a lesser misdemeanor charge. However, following his unsuccessful discharge from the program, the court sentenced him to incarceration.

The parties involved in this case include the People of the State of New York as the respondent and Patrick M. Rafferty as the defendant-appellant. The appeal arose after Rafferty was informed that he would not be allowed to continue in the drug treatment program, prompting him to waive a hearing and move directly for sentencing. This decision to waive the hearing is at the heart of Rafferty's appeal.

In its ruling, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment, stating, "Defendant contends that his waiver of the hearing was not voluntary, intelligent, and knowing because the court did not place the reasons for the unsuccessful discharge on the record and failed to ensure that he understood the consequences of the waiver." The judges involved in the ruling included Presiding Justice Whalen and Justices Lindley, Curran, Ogden, and Skinner.

The court noted that Rafferty did not preserve his argument for appeal, as he failed to object to his discharge from the drug treatment program. The court also declined to review his contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. The judges found that the sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or severe, affirming the lower court's decision.

This ruling has implications for individuals who enter plea agreements involving probation and treatment programs. It highlights the importance of understanding the terms of such agreements and the potential consequences of failing to meet their conditions. The court's decision reinforces that defendants must actively preserve their rights during legal proceedings, as failing to object can limit their ability to appeal later.

Going forward, this case serves as a reminder to defendants about the importance of being fully aware of their legal rights and the implications of their decisions in court. It also emphasizes the need for clear communication between the court and defendants regarding the terms of plea agreements and any subsequent actions.

As for what’s next, it is unclear if Rafferty plans to appeal this decision further. There are no indications in the court filing about any related cases pending that could impact this ruling. The court filing did not name the attorneys involved in the case.