People v. Elting

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Elting

55 A.D.3d 623, 864 N.Y.S.2d 327

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 623 (People v. Elting) 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. Elting, 55 A.D.3d 623, 864 N.Y.S.2d 327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated March 15, 2005, which denied his motion for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738) on his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon his plea of guilty, on September 13, 2001.

Ordered that the order 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]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo, McCarthy and Chambers, 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 County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated March 15, 2005, which denied his motion for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738) on his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon his plea of guilty, on September 13, 2001.

Ordered that the order 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]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 623, 864 N.Y.S.2d 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-elting-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack