People v. Cohall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cohall

34 A.D.3d 826, 823 N.Y.S.2d 903

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 826 (People v. Cohall) 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. Cohall, 34 A.D.3d 826, 823 N.Y.S.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered July 26, 2005, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree under indictment No. 05-251, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same [827]*827court also rendered July 26, 2005, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of burglary in the third degree under indictment No. 02-27.

Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are 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 the appeals. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Schmidt, J.P., Ritter, Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered July 26, 2005, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree under indictment No. 05-251, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same [827]*827court also rendered July 26, 2005, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of burglary in the third degree under indictment No. 02-27.

Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are 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 the appeals. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Schmidt, J.P., Ritter, Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 826, 823 N.Y.S.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cohall-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack