People v. Ducanic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ducanic

157 A.D.2d 743, 551 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 451

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A.D.2d 743 (People v. Ducanic) 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. Ducanic, 157 A.D.2d 743, 551 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Sweeny, J.), rendered January 31, 1989, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree [744]*744and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, 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 meritorious 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; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Brown, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, 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 County Court, Putnam County (Sweeny, J.), rendered January 31, 1989, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree [744]*744and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, 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 meritorious 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; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Brown, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 743, 551 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ducanic-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack