Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kedwin LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence H. Bernstein, J.), rendered February 25, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, to attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 8 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, the plea vacated, that count of the indictment dismissed, and the matter remanded for further proceedings on the remaining counts of the indictment.
Defendant pleaded guilty to a count of the indictment charging attempted depraved indifference murder, which, as both sides agree, is a nonexistent, legally impossible crime, in that one cannot attempt a crime in which the result does not require intent (see People v. Campbell, 72 N.Y.2d 602, 605, 535 N.Y.S.2d 580, 532 N.E.2d 86 [1988]; People v. Acevedo, 32 N.Y.2d 807, 345 N.Y.S.2d 555, 298 N.E.2d 691 [1973] ). This was not a situation where a defendant pleaded guilty to a hypothetical crime under a valid count of the indictment (see People v. Foster, 19 N.Y.2d 150, 153, 278 N.Y.S.2d 603, 225 N.E.2d 200 [1967] ). Defendant's plea to a nonexistent crime is a jurisdictional defect rendering the plea a nullity, and the proper remedy is remand for further proceedings on the remainder of the indictment (see People v. Castillo, 30 A.D.3d 1118, 816 N.Y.S.2d 66 [2006], affd. 8 N.Y.3d 959, 836 N.Y.S.2d 505, 868 N.E.2d 185 [2007]; People v. Trueluck, 219 A.D.2d 490, 631 N.Y.S.2d 164 [1995], affd. 88 N.Y.2d 546, 647 N.Y.S.2d 476, 670 N.E.2d 977 [1996] ). Defendant requests this Court to “deem” his plea to be a plea to reckless endangerment in the first degree, rather than vacating the conviction and reinstating the other counts of the original indictment. However, since the conviction was on a jurisdictionally defective count, defendant's suggested remedy would be unlawful.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 29, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)