People v. Galbreith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Galbreith

211 A.D.2d 685, 622 N.Y.S.2d 463

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 685 (People v. Galbreith) 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. Galbreith, 211 A.D.2d 685, 622 N.Y.S.2d 463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), both rendered February 4, 1992, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Indictment No. 2837/91, upon a jury verdict, and criminal facilitation in the second degree under Indictment No. 2857/91, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are 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; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606). We have considered the arguments raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief and find that they are frivolous. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), both rendered February 4, 1992, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Indictment No. 2837/91, upon a jury verdict, and criminal facilitation in the second degree under Indictment No. 2857/91, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are 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; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606). We have considered the arguments raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief and find that they are frivolous. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 685, 622 N.Y.S.2d 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-galbreith-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack