People v. Dorsey

216 A.D.3d 1177, 188 N.Y.S.3d 718, 2023 NY Slip Op 02890
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 31, 2023
DocketInd. No. 3461/96
StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.3d 1177 (People v. Dorsey) 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. Dorsey, 216 A.D.3d 1177, 188 N.Y.S.3d 718, 2023 NY Slip Op 02890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

People v Dorsey (2023 NY Slip Op 02890)
People v Dorsey
2023 NY Slip Op 02890
Decided on May 31, 2023
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 May 31, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2017-10810
(Ind. No. 3461/96)

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

v

Leroy Dorsey, appellant.


Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Erica Horwitz of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant pursuant to CPL 450.10(5) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deborah A. Dowling, J.), dated July 31, 2017. The order denied, without a hearing, that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPL 440.30(1-a) for forensic DNA testing of certain evidence. 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.

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 that could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, MALTESE and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

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)
216 A.D.3d 1177, 188 N.Y.S.3d 718, 2023 NY Slip Op 02890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dorsey-nyappdiv-2023.