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, etc., respondent, v. Kristian LOPEZ, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from (1) an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Morgenstern, J.), rendered March 23, 2004, revoking a sentence of conditional discharge previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, and resentencing him upon his previous conviction of criminal contempt in the second degree under Queens County Indictment No. 58042/03, upon his plea of guilty, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered March 23, 2004, convicting him of resisting arrest under Queens County Indictment No. 13913/04, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the amended judgment and the judgment are affirmed.
The defendant's contentions regarding the factual sufficiency and the voluntariness of his pleas of guilty to criminal contempt in the second degree and resisting arrest, and the court's alleged failure to conduct a hearing with regard to his violation of the terms of his conditional discharge, are improperly raised on the appeal from the amended judgment (see People v. Satiro, 28 A.D.3d 497, 811 N.Y.S.2d 589; People v. Christie, 236 A.D.2d 482, 654 N.Y.S.2d 597; People v. Smith, 203 A.D.2d 495, 610 N.Y.S.2d 594), or are unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant never sought to withdraw or set aside his pleas of guilty in the court of first instance and did not deny his violation of the conditional discharge or seek a hearing with respect thereto (see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160; People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5; People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 467 N.Y.S.2d 355, 454 N.E.2d 938; People v. Thompson, 28 A.D.3d 498, 816 N.Y.S.2d 80; People v. Bevins, 27 A.D.3d 572, 811 N.Y.S.2d 429; People v. Matos, 27 A.D.3d 485, 812 N.Y.S.2d 577; People v. Zaborowski, 16 A.D.3d 1058, 792 N.Y.S.2d 755). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review any of these issues.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 19, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)