People v. Comfort

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Comfort

41 A.D.3d 1326, 836 N.Y.S.2d 451

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

DecidedJune 8, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 1326 (People v. Comfort) 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. Comfort, 41 A.D.3d 1326, 836 N.Y.S.2d 451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

The case is held, the decision is reserved, the motion to relieve counsel of assignment is granted and new counsel is to be assigned. Memorandum: Defendant’s application for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 23) was denied. Defendant’s assigned appellate counsel has moved to be relieved of the assignment pursuant to People v Crawford (71 AD2d 38 [1979]), and has submitted an affirmation in which he concludes that there are no nonfrivolous issues meriting this Court’s consideration. The facts raise the issue of whether the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s application. Therefore, we relieve counsel of his assignment and assign new counsel to brief this issue, as well as any other issues that counsel’s review of the record may disclose. (Appeal from Order of Steuben [1327]*1327County Court, Joseph W. Latham, J.—Sentence). Present— Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.

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

The case is held, the decision is reserved, the motion to relieve counsel of assignment is granted and new counsel is to be assigned. Memorandum: Defendant’s application for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 23) was denied. Defendant’s assigned appellate counsel has moved to be relieved of the assignment pursuant to People v Crawford (71 AD2d 38 [1979]), and has submitted an affirmation in which he concludes that there are no nonfrivolous issues meriting this Court’s consideration. The facts raise the issue of whether the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s application. Therefore, we relieve counsel of his assignment and assign new counsel to brief this issue, as well as any other issues that counsel’s review of the record may disclose. (Appeal from Order of Steuben [1327]*1327County Court, Joseph W. Latham, J.—Sentence). Present— Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 1326, 836 N.Y.S.2d 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-comfort-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack