People v. Baldwin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baldwin

117 A.D.3d 840, 984 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedMay 14, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 840 (People v. Baldwin) 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. Baldwin, 117 A.D.3d 840, 984 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Putnam County (Reitz, J.), both rendered September 27, 2011, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree under indictment No. 26/08 and perjury in the first degree under indictment No. 19/10, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgments are 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, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel for the defendant is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; 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]).

Rivera, J.P, Dickerson, Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Putnam County (Reitz, J.), both rendered September 27, 2011, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree under indictment No. 26/08 and perjury in the first degree under indictment No. 19/10, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgments are 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, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel for the defendant is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; 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]).

Rivera, J.P, Dickerson, Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 840, 984 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baldwin-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack