Can NY Sentences be Reduced Due to Defendant’s Trauma?

Can NY Sentences be Reduced Even if Defenants Waive The Right to Appeal?

Yes, the Supreme Court of the NYS Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department on July 25, 2025, significantly reduced a defendant’s sentence from 25 years to only five years in prison, despite the defendant having waived her right to appeal. The groundbreaking decision in People v. Hannah T.  changed decades of established precedent about the finality of plea agreements.

Hannah T., 17 years old at the time of the offense, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree in Monroe County Court for her role in the murder of her biological mother. She endured a deeply disturbing pattern of childhood trauma that the court found extraordinary. From age six to eleven, Hannah suffered “extreme abuse and torture.” This started with a transfer to foster care, at the hands of her adoptive parents in Arizona, including being starved to near-malnourishment, forced to live outside while naked, and subjected to such severe conditions that when rescued, she weighed approximately 60 pounds and was characterized in a media report as resembling a concentration camp survivor.

Hannah’s adoptive parents placed duct tape over her mouth for days at a time and forced her to run outside for hours as punishment, while also dressing her like a baby and making her wear diapers while inside the home. The adoptive parents were sentenced to 14 and 20 years for their crimes against Hannah. Her biological mother, who had initially lost custody due to neglect and abuse, resumed her pattern of mistreatment when Hannah was returned to her care as a teenager.

Days before the killing, Hannah’s mother refused to take her to a hospital for a miscarriage which was the most pain she had ever endured. In the months leading to the crime, Hannah’s mother physically and psychologically abused her by slapping her during an argument and threatening suicide when she said that she wanted to return to Arizona.

The murder itself was carried out by Hannah’s 16-year-old boyfriend, who fired the fatal shots while Hannah remained in another room. Both Hannah and her boyfriend pleaded guilty to manslaughter and received identical 25-year sentences as part of negotiated plea agreements that included waivers of their right to appeal.

Central to the court’s analysis was Hannah’s diagnosis of Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), a rare but severe psychological condition that develops when children experience extreme early trauma. The DSM-5 classifies reactive attachment disorder as a trauma- and stressor-related condition of early childhood caused by social neglect or maltreatment, affecting children’s ability to form healthy emotional attachments.

The mitigation report detailed how Hannah’s case exemplified the devastating effects of RAD. Individuals diagnosed with RAD cannot form attachments with caregivers and are often frequently susceptible to forming inappropriately close relationships with near strangers, which can make them highly susceptible to being exploited by others. This vulnerability directly contributed to Hannah’s relationship with her boyfriend and her susceptibility to his influence.

The court emphasized that RAD fundamentally altered Hannah’s brain development during critical formative years. The mitigation report explained that because she could not remove herself from her abusive situation, her brain began to numb itself, removing her ability to feel the acute horror of what was happening.

This neurological damage meant that adults who suffer repeated traumas as children have been shown to have extreme difficulty in decision making, ethical judgements and moral reasoning because the chemical and physical makeup of the brain has been altered.

For decades, New York courts have consistently held that defendants who voluntarily waive their right to appeal as part of plea agreements cannot subsequently challenge their sentences, even if those sentences might be considered harsh.

This case, however, carved out a dramatic exception to this established rule. The court declared that while appeal waivers generally foreclose review of sentencing severity, “the Appellate Division’s constitutional power to review sentences in the interest of justice cannot be eliminated by agreement between parties.”

The court established a new test for when it can override valid appeal waivers: “Where a sentence is fundamentally unjust and all other safeguards have failed, we are compelled to exercise our constitutionalized interest of justice power to correct the injustice, no matter the validity of the appeal waiver.”

The court found that Hannah’s case met this extraordinary standard due to several factors:

1. Her extensive history of childhood trauma and abuse.
2. Clinical diagnoses including reactive attachment disorder, conduct disorder, and PTSD.
3. Evidence that the abuse “altered her brain development and decision-making abilities.
4. Her lack of direct involvement in the violent act.
5. A plea for leniency from the victim’s own mother (Hannah’s grandmother).
6. Her potential eligibility for alternative sentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act.

Because of Hannah’s status as a victim of domestic violence, she should have been considered for alternative sentencing under New York’s Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act. This statute allows for significantly reduced sentences when a defendant was a victim of substantial abuse that was a significant contributing factor to the defendant’s criminal behavior.

The court found that Hannah clearly met all the criteria for DVSJA consideration:

• She was subjected to substantial physical, sexual, and psychological abuse by family members.
• The abuse was a significant contributing factor to her criminal behavior.
• A standard sentence would be “unduly harsh” given her circumstances.

However, Hannah’s defense counsel failed to request a DVSJA hearing, a fact that proved central to both the court’s reasoning.

If you are facing criminal charges, call or text Friedman & Ranzenhofer PC today at 716-541-3405 to schedule a consultation now with one of our experienced criminal defense attorneys. We will work with you to understand your situation and provide you with the legal assistance you need to protect your rights and achieve the best possible outcome in your case.