People v. Duart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Duart

2017 NY Slip Op 6947, 154 A.D.3d 685, 60 N.Y.S.3d 839

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2017

Docket2013-08576

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6947 (People v. Duart) 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. Duart, 2017 NY Slip Op 6947, 154 A.D.3d 685, 60 N.Y.S.3d 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.), dated June 3, 2014, which, after a hearing, designated him a level one sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. 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 order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

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 id.; 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]).

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Iannacci, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.), dated June 3, 2014, which, after a hearing, designated him a level one sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. 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 order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

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 id.; 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]).

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Iannacci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6947, 154 A.D.3d 685, 60 N.Y.S.3d 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-duart-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack