People v. Harris (Robert)

72 Misc. 3d 141(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50836(U)
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedAugust 20, 2021
Docket2019-1816 RI CR
StatusUnpublished

This text of 72 Misc. 3d 141(A) (People v. Harris (Robert)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Harris (Robert), 72 Misc. 3d 141(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50836(U) (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

People v Harris (2021 NY Slip Op 50836(U)) [*1]

People v Harris (Robert)
2021 NY Slip Op 50836(U) [72 Misc 3d 141(A)]
Decided on August 20, 2021
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on August 20, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ
2019-1816 RI CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Robert Harris, Appellant.


New York City Legal Aid Society (Ellen Dille of counsel), for appellant. Richmond County District Attorney (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Alexander Fumelli of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Raymond Rodriguez, J.), rendered January 5, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposed sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), seeking leave to withdraw as counsel.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), 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.; People v Croft, 195 AD3d 944 [2021]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 20, 2021

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. Croft
2021 NY Slip Op 04029 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Gonzalez
393 N.E.2d 987 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
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)
72 Misc. 3d 141(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50836(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harris-robert-nyappterm-2021.