People v. Delgado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Delgado

135 A.D.3d 953, 22 N.Y.S.3d 906

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2016

Docket2015-03667

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.3d 953 (People v. Delgado) 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. Delgado, 135 A.D.3d 953, 22 N.Y.S.3d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Grella, J.), rendered October 22, 2014, as amended November 13, 2014, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), 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 Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; 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]). Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, 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, Nassau County (Grella, J.), rendered October 22, 2014, as amended November 13, 2014, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), 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 Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; 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]). Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.3d 953, 22 N.Y.S.3d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-delgado-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack