People v. Lopez

• Decision Date: 16 July 2021
• Docket Number: 457 KA 19-00481
• Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 04449
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. JOSEPH LOPEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2021 NY Slip Op 04449

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. JOSEPH LOPEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

No. 457 KA 19-00481

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

July 16, 2021

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (DEBORAH K. JESSEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. LOWRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered August 14, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (two counts).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.75 [1] [a]). We affirm.

Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal is invalid (see generally People v Goins, 191 A.D.3d 1399, 1399 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1120 [2021]), we reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress certain statements that defendant made to the police (see People v Crane, 87 A.D.3d 1386, 1387 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 952 [2011]).

We also reject defendant's contention that the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant him youthful offender status (see People v Simpson, 182 A.D.3d 1046, 1047 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1049 [2020]). Additionally, having reviewed the applicable factors pertinent to a youthful offender adjudication (see People v Keith B.J., 158 A.D.3d 1160, 1160 [4th Dept 2018]), we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to grant him such status (see Simpson, 182 A.D.3d at 1047). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.