People v. Fuqua

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fuqua

133 A.D.3d 684, 18 N.Y.S.3d 875

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2015

Docket2013-08195

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.3d 684 (People v. Fuqua) 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. Fuqua, 133 A.D.3d 684, 18 N.Y.S.3d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered July 12, 2013, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree and criminal contempt in the second degree, 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 to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

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, 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]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese 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, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered July 12, 2013, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree and criminal contempt in the second degree, 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 to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

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, 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]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 684, 18 N.Y.S.3d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fuqua-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack