People v. Angel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Angel

54 A.D.3d 382, 861 N.Y.S.2d 950

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

DecidedAugust 12, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.3d 382 (People v. Angel) 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. Angel, 54 A.D.3d 382, 861 N.Y.S.2d 950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered March 30, 2006, convicting him of [383]*383perjury in the first degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and criminal possession of forged instrument in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’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 (Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Moriah, 52 AD3d 534 [2008]).

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

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered March 30, 2006, convicting him of [383]*383perjury in the first degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and criminal possession of forged instrument in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’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 (Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Moriah, 52 AD3d 534 [2008]).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.3d 382, 861 N.Y.S.2d 950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-angel-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack