People v. Cabreja

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cabreja

2017 NY Slip Op 6942, 154 A.D.3d 684, 60 N.Y.S.3d 839

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2017

Docket2016-03743

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6942 (People v. Cabreja) 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. Cabreja, 2017 NY Slip Op 6942, 154 A.D.3d 684, 60 N.Y.S.3d 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chin-Brandt, J.), rendered June 16, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth 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 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, 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 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]).

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, 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, Queens County (Chin-Brandt, J.), rendered June 16, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth 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 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, 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 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]).

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6942, 154 A.D.3d 684, 60 N.Y.S.3d 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cabreja-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack