People v. Gooden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gooden

108 A.D.3d 876, 968 N.Y.S.2d 408

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

DecidedJuly 11, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.D.3d 876 (People v. Gooden) 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. Gooden, 108 A.D.3d 876, 968 N.Y.S.2d 408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered December 4, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged in an indictment with criminal sale of [877]*877a controlled substance in the third degree and he pleaded guilty to this crime. Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was to receive a sentence of no more than eight years in prison, to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Prior to sentencing, defendant made a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion was denied by County Court. Defendant was thereafter sentenced as a second felony offender to six years in prison, to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. He now appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record and counsel’s brief, we agree. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed and counsel’s request for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Spain and Garry, 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 Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered December 4, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged in an indictment with criminal sale of [877]*877a controlled substance in the third degree and he pleaded guilty to this crime. Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was to receive a sentence of no more than eight years in prison, to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Prior to sentencing, defendant made a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion was denied by County Court. Defendant was thereafter sentenced as a second felony offender to six years in prison, to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. He now appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record and counsel’s brief, we agree. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed and counsel’s request for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.3d 876, 968 N.Y.S.2d 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gooden-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack