PEOPLE v. ALQAM (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.

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 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 543 N.Y.S.2d 968, 541 N.E.2d 1022).

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 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Calabria, 3 N.Y.3d 80, 81-82, 783 N.Y.S.2d 321, 816 N.E.2d 1257).   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 N.Y.3d 633, 643, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).