People v. Decclesis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Decclesis

18 A.D.3d 882, 795 N.Y.S.2d 465

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

DecidedMay 31, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 882 (People v. Decclesis) 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. Decclesis, 18 A.D.3d 882, 795 N.Y.S.2d 465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered August 20, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is 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 appeal. 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]).

The defendant has raised no nonfrivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that his waiver of prosecution by indictment was valid (see CPL 195.10, 195.20; People v Hill, 269 AD2d 404, 405 [2000]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, 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, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered August 20, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is 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 appeal. 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]).

The defendant has raised no nonfrivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that his waiver of prosecution by indictment was valid (see CPL 195.10, 195.20; People v Hill, 269 AD2d 404, 405 [2000]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 882, 795 N.Y.S.2d 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-decclesis-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack