People v. Arroyo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arroyo

248 A.D.2d 625, 669 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2856

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 625 (People v. Arroyo) 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. Arroyo, 248 A.D.2d 625, 669 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), rendered July 8, 1996, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that she had violated a condition thereof, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon her previous conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Ordered that the amended 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 (see, Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

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

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), rendered July 8, 1996, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that she had violated a condition thereof, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon her previous conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Ordered that the amended 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 (see, Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 625, 669 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arroyo-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack