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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 18, 2015·No. 2009-02124·Published

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.

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

Pincite

133 A.D.3d 778 (People v. Fanelli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related