People ex rel. Harris v. Lord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Harris v. Lord

237 A.D.2d 639, 655 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2999

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 31, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 639 (People ex rel. Harris v. Lord) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Harris v. Lord, 237 A.D.2d 639, 655 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Angiolillo, J.), entered July 7, 1995, which dismissed the proceeding.

[640]*640Order that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the petitioner’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, Anders v California, 386 US 738).

The claims raised by the petitioner in the petition and in her pro se brief are procedurally barred (see, People ex rel. Pearson v Garvin, 211 AD2d 690; People ex rel. Benbow v Scully, 189 AD2d 844). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Angiolillo, J.), entered July 7, 1995, which dismissed the proceeding.

[640]*640Order that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the petitioner’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, Anders v California, 386 US 738).

The claims raised by the petitioner in the petition and in her pro se brief are procedurally barred (see, People ex rel. Pearson v Garvin, 211 AD2d 690; People ex rel. Benbow v Scully, 189 AD2d 844). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 639, 655 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-harris-v-lord-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack