People v. Gill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gill

264 A.D.2d 868, 693 N.Y.S.2d 922

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

DecidedSeptember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 868 (People v. Gill) 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. Gill, 264 A.D.2d 868, 693 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Eidens, J.), rendered September 24, 1997, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, conspiracy in the fourth degree and hindering prosecution in the first degree.

Defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel for defendant bn the ground that there are no nonfrivo-lous issues that can be raised on appeal. We agree. The record reveals that defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, conspiracy in the fourth degree and hindering prosecution in the first degree and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to consecutive prison terms. In view of the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of conviction and defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted (see, People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, lv denied 67 NY2d 650).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Eidens, J.), rendered September 24, 1997, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, conspiracy in the fourth degree and hindering prosecution in the first degree.

Defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel for defendant bn the ground that there are no nonfrivo-lous issues that can be raised on appeal. We agree. The record reveals that defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, conspiracy in the fourth degree and hindering prosecution in the first degree and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to consecutive prison terms. In view of the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of conviction and defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted (see, People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, lv denied 67 NY2d 650).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 868, 693 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gill-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack