People v. Hulls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hulls

192 A.D.2d 622, 596 N.Y.S.2d 734

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

DecidedApril 12, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 622 (People v. Hulls) 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. Hulls, 192 A.D.2d 622, 596 N.Y.S.2d 734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered December 14, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, Anders v Califor[623]*623nia, 386 US 738; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

We have considered the arguments raised in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief and find that there are no nonfrivolous issues warranting reversal or the assignment of new appellate counsel. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered December 14, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, Anders v Califor[623]*623nia, 386 US 738; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

We have considered the arguments raised in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief and find that there are no nonfrivolous issues warranting reversal or the assignment of new appellate counsel. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 622, 596 N.Y.S.2d 734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hulls-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack