Opinion
2016–01802 2016–01803
03-28-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. TAQUIZ F. (Anonymous), appellant. (S.C.I. Nos. 1176–13, 1580–13)
Matthew Muraskin, Port Jefferson, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Kevin C. King of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Matthew Muraskin, Port Jefferson, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Kevin C. King of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeals by the defendant from two amended judgments of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christopher G. Quinn, J.), both rendered January 21, 2016, revoking sentences of probation previously imposed by the same court (George R. Peck, J.), upon a finding that he violated conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing sentences of imprisonment upon his previous adjudications as a youthful offender for attempted robbery in the third degree under Superior Court Information No. 1176–13, and attempted burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree under Superior Court Information No. 1580–13.
ORDERED that the amended judgments are affirmed.
After the defendant was adjudicated a youthful offender under two separate superior court informations in September 2013, he failed to file notices of appeal within the 30–day statutory period (see CPL 460.10[1] ). In January 2016, the defendant was found, upon his admission, to be in violation of the terms of his probation. The Supreme Court revoked the defendant's probation and imposed sentences of incarceration. On these appeals, the defendant challenges the validity of his original pleas of guilty.
The defendant is foreclosed from challenging the validity of his original pleas of guilty on these appeals from the amended judgments (see People v. Whitlock, 114 A.D.3d 970, 971, 980 N.Y.S.2d 831 ; People v. Pagan, 27 A.D.3d 580, 581, 810 N.Y.S.2d 370 ). Since the defendant does not challenge the finding that he violated the terms of his probation or the sentences imposed thereon, we affirm the amended judgments.
MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.