A New York appellate court has upheld the sentence of Terry L. McNerney Jr., who was convicted of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance. The court's decision, issued on May 21, 2026, affects McNerney, who will now serve four years in prison following a positive drug test that violated the terms of his plea agreement. This ruling highlights the consequences of failing to adhere to court-imposed conditions during the sentencing process.
The case, People v. McNerney, CR-23-1160, began when McNerney entered a guilty plea to the charge of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The plea was part of a deal that included a waiver of his right to appeal, with the understanding that he would receive a sentence of time served and five years of probation. However, the court warned McNerney that he would be drug tested upon his return to court and that a positive test would lead to a different sentence.
After his plea, McNerney returned to court and tested positive for controlled substances. As a result, the county court, presided over by Judge Joseph Cawley, informed him that it was no longer bound by the original sentencing agreement. The court subsequently sentenced him to four years in prison, followed by three years of post-release supervision, as he was classified as a second felony offender.
The appellate court, which included Judges Garry, Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Corcoran, and Ryba, reviewed McNerney's appeal against the backdrop of his plea agreement and the conditions attached to it. McNerney argued that his appeal waiver should be considered void due to public policy concerns. However, the court ruled that waiving the right to appeal as part of a plea agreement is not inherently coercive or against public policy. The court stated, "waiving one's right to appeal as part of a plea agreement is not inherently coercive or against public policy."
Furthermore, the court found that McNerney was fully aware of the terms of the plea agreement, including the appeal waiver. During the plea colloquy, the court explained that the waiver was separate from other rights he forfeited by pleading guilty. McNerney confirmed that he understood the waiver and had discussed it with his counsel, Rebekah Nellis Kennedy. The court noted that he had signed a written appeal waiver, which indicated that he had reviewed it with his attorney and understood its content.
Given the valid appeal waiver and the clear warning about the consequences of a positive drug test, the court concluded that McNerney's challenge to the severity of his enhanced sentence was not permissible. The ruling emphasized that the court had followed proper procedures in informing McNerney of the potential outcomes based on his actions.
This ruling has significant implications for individuals involved in similar cases. It reinforces the idea that defendants must adhere to the conditions set by the court in plea agreements. Failure to comply, such as testing positive for drugs, can lead to harsher sentences than originally anticipated. This case serves as a cautionary tale for those considering plea deals, highlighting the importance of understanding the terms and consequences of such agreements.
Looking ahead, McNerney may have limited options for further appeal, given the court's affirmation of his sentence and the validity of his appeal waiver. The court's ruling sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the enforceability of plea agreements and the consequences of violating their terms.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential related cases or further legal actions McNerney may pursue. However, the outcome of this case may influence future defendants in similar situations, as it clarifies the legal ramifications of violating plea conditions.