From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Alqam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2008
49 A.D.3d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

Nos. 2006-03502, 2006-03503.

March 18, 2008.

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), rendered March 16, 2006, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree under indictment No. 128/05, upon his plea of guilty, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Rooney, J.), also rendered March 16, 2006, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree (three counts), endangering the welfare of a child (two counts) and resisting arrest under indictment No. 156/05, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences.

Ralph Cherchian, Forest Hills, N.Y., for appellant.

Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Lauren-Brooke Eisen of ounsel), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ.


Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the judgment convicting him of a single count of criminal contempt in the first degree ( see Penal Law § 215.51 [c]), upon his plea of guilty, is barred because the plea encompassed a waiver of the right to appeal, and the waiver was knowingly, voluntary, and intelligently made ( see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11).

There is no merit to the defendant's challenge to the judgment convicting him of three counts of criminal contempt in the first degree ( see Penal Law § 215.51 [b], [c]), two counts of endangering the welfare of a child ( see Penal Law § 260.10), and resisting arrest ( see Penal Law § 205.30), upon a jury verdict. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80, 81-82). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643).

The sentences imposed were not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).


Summaries of

People v. Alqam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2008
49 A.D.3d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

People v. Alqam

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. AMJAD ALQAM, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 18, 2008

Citations

49 A.D.3d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2610
853 N.Y.S.2d 632

Citing Cases

People v. Kruger

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's challenge to the judgment convicting him of burglary…

People v. Alqam

July 3, 2008. Appeal from the 2d Dept: 49 AD3d 776 (Richmond). Ciparick,…