People v. Fanelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fanelli

133 A.D.3d 778, 19 N.Y.S.3d 186

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2015

Docket2009-02124

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.3d 778 (People v. Fanelli) 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. Fanelli, 133 A.D.3d 778, 19 N.Y.S.3d 186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered April 15, 2008, convicting him of burglary in the second 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.

*779 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 we have also reviewed the defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Hardy, 130 AD3d 753 [2015]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]). Rivera, J.R, Dillon, Chambers and LaSalle, 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, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered April 15, 2008, convicting him of burglary in the second 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.

*779 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 we have also reviewed the defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Hardy, 130 AD3d 753 [2015]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]). Rivera, J.R, Dillon, Chambers and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 778, 19 N.Y.S.3d 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fanelli-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack