People v. Alqam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Alqam

49 A.D.3d 776, 853 N.Y.2d 632

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 18, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 776 (People v. Alqam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Alqam, 49 A.D.3d 776, 853 N.Y.2d 632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

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 [1989]).

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 [1983]), 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 [2004]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006]).

[777]*777The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 [1989]).

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 [1983]), 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 [2004]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006]).

[777]*777The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 776, 853 N.Y.2d 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-alqam-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack