People v. Finkman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Finkman

159 A.D.2d 515

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 159 A.D.2d 515 (People v. Finkman) 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. Finkman, 159 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Maraño, J.), rendered April 27, 1.987, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, 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). We have also examined the defendant’s pro se brief and find the points raised therein to be without merit. To the extent that the defendant’s claims regarding the effectiveness of his representation by counsel concern matters outside the record, the proper remedy is an application to the Supreme Court to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10. Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Fiber and Balletta, 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, Kings County (Maraño, J.), rendered April 27, 1.987, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, 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). We have also examined the defendant’s pro se brief and find the points raised therein to be without merit. To the extent that the defendant’s claims regarding the effectiveness of his representation by counsel concern matters outside the record, the proper remedy is an application to the Supreme Court to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10. Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Fiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-finkman-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack