People v. Aquart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Aquart

2017 NY Slip Op 2668, 149 A.D.3d 767, 49 N.Y.S.3d 634

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

DecidedApril 5, 2017

Docket2015-07231

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2668 (People v. Aquart) 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. Aquart, 2017 NY Slip Op 2668, 149 A.D.3d 767, 49 N.Y.S.3d 634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), rendered June 24, 2015, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 *768 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), and we have also reviewed the defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see id. Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Barros, 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, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), rendered June 24, 2015, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 *768 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), and we have also reviewed the defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see id. Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2668, 149 A.D.3d 767, 49 N.Y.S.3d 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-aquart-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack