People v. Andujar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Andujar

74 A.D.2d 926, 426 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10738

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.2d 926 (People v. Andujar) 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 v. Andujar, 74 A.D.2d 926, 426 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered September 28, 1978, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the third degree, assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious grounds which could be raised on this appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606.) Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered September 28, 1978, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the third degree, assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious grounds which could be raised on this appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606.) Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 926, 426 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-andujar-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack