People ex rel. Rodriguez v. Bednosky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Rodriguez v. Bednosky

2 A.D.3d 657, 768 N.Y.S.2d 347

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 657 (People ex rel. Rodriguez v. Bednosky) 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. Rodriguez v. Bednosky, 2 A.D.3d 657, 768 N.Y.S.2d 347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), dated April 19, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Justice Adams has been substituted for the late Justice O’Brien, and Justice Santucci has been substituted for former Justice Feuerstein (see 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

Ordered that the 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 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

The defendant has not, nor could he have, raised any nonfrivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Adams, 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 a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), dated April 19, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Justice Adams has been substituted for the late Justice O’Brien, and Justice Santucci has been substituted for former Justice Feuerstein (see 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

Ordered that the 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 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

The defendant has not, nor could he have, raised any nonfrivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 657, 768 N.Y.S.2d 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-rodriguez-v-bednosky-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack