People v. Garnett

2022 NY Slip Op 03906
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 15, 2022
Docket2019-02229
StatusPublished

This text of 2022 NY Slip Op 03906 (People v. Garnett) 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. Garnett, 2022 NY Slip Op 03906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

People v Garnett (2022 NY Slip Op 03906)
People v Garnett
2022 NY Slip Op 03906
Decided on June 15, 2022
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 15, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI
ROBERT J. MILLER
JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.

2019-02229
2019-02230

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Damon Garnett, appellant.


Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Lynn W. L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Danielle S. Fenn of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Suzanne Melendez, J., at plea; Gia L. Morris, J., at sentence), both rendered January 24, 2019, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Superior Court Information No. 2548/18, and attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Superior Court Information No. 10313/18, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

ORDERED that the judgments are 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), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631).

DUFFY, J.P., IANNACCI, MILLER and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
People v. Paige
54 A.D.2d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re Giovanni S.
89 A.D.3d 252 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2022 NY Slip Op 03906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-garnett-nyappdiv-2022.