People v. Cervantes-Suchite

2019 NY Slip Op 915
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 6, 2019
Docket2017-04939
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 915 (People v. Cervantes-Suchite) 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. Cervantes-Suchite, 2019 NY Slip Op 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

People v Cervantes-Suchite (2019 NY Slip Op 00915)
People v Cervantes-Suchite
2019 NY Slip Op 00915
Decided on February 6, 2019
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 6, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SHERI S. ROMAN
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

2017-04939

[*1]People of State of New York, respondent,

v

Juan Cervantes-Suchite, appellant. Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.


Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Barbara Kahn, J.), dated March 24, 2017, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738), 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.; People v Gilbert, 163 AD3d 1010; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

LEVENTHAL, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN, MALTESE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.

ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
People v. Gonzalez
393 N.E.2d 987 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
People v. Paige
54 A.D.2d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re Giovanni S.
89 A.D.3d 252 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cervantes-suchite-nyappdiv-2019.