People v. Gineffra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gineffra

111 A.D.2d 870, 491 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50130

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

DecidedJune 17, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.2d 870 (People v. Gineffra) 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. Gineffra, 111 A.D.2d 870, 491 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.), both rendered May 17,1983, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues that 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). In reaching our determination we have considered defendant’s pro se argument that the sentencing court improvidently failed to afford him youthful offender status. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.), both rendered May 17,1983, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues that 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). In reaching our determination we have considered defendant’s pro se argument that the sentencing court improvidently failed to afford him youthful offender status. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 870, 491 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gineffra-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack