Peoplev.Lopez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First DepartmentNov 29, 2007
45 A.D.3d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Cases citing this document

How cited

  • People v. Bethea

    Defendant appeals. Penal Law § 265.02 (4) was repealed effective November 1, 2006, several months before this…

  • People v. Tammaro

    The cases relied upon by defendant are distinguishable. In both People v. Barksdale, 139 A.D.3d 1080, 30…

7 Citing cases

No. 2243 3982/03.

November 29, 2007.

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 eight 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.

Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (William B. Carney of counsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Bryan C. Hughes of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Lippman, P.J., Nardelli, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ


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 NY2d 602, 605; People v Acevedo, 32 NY2d 807). 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 NY2d 150, 153). 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 AD3d 1118, affd 8 NY3d 959; People v Trueluck, 219 AD2d 490, affd 88 NY2d 546). 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.