People v. Benjamin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Benjamin

123 A.D.3d 837, 996 N.Y.S.2d 543

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2014

Docket2011-08420

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 837 (People v. Benjamin) 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. Benjamin, 123 A.D.3d 837, 996 N.Y.S.2d 543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Morgenstern, J.), rendered April 28, 2011, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. 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 defendant.

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]; see Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]), and we have also reviewed the defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Counsel has informed this Court that the defendant is unwilling to raise any contention on appeal that, if successful, would result in further proceedings which might possibly subject him to a risk of receiving a sentence Lon *838 ger than the one that he has already served. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no remaining nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is therefore granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; see also People v Cardwell, 98 AD3d 986 [2012]; People v Belton, 74 AD3d 834 [2010]).

Mastro, J.P., Roman, Miller and Maltese, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Morgenstern, J.), rendered April 28, 2011, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. 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 defendant.

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]; see Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]), and we have also reviewed the defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Counsel has informed this Court that the defendant is unwilling to raise any contention on appeal that, if successful, would result in further proceedings which might possibly subject him to a risk of receiving a sentence Lon *838 ger than the one that he has already served. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no remaining nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is therefore granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; see also People v Cardwell, 98 AD3d 986 [2012]; People v Belton, 74 AD3d 834 [2010]).

Mastro, J.P., Roman, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 837, 996 N.Y.S.2d 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-benjamin-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack