People v. Humphrey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Humphrey

124 A.D.3d 678, 997 N.Y.S.2d 918

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2015

Docket2013-08743

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 678 (People v. Humphrey) 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. Humphrey, 124 A.D.3d 678, 997 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), rendered July 25, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California *679 (386 US 738 [1967]) in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the 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 Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; 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]).

Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Hinds-Radix, Duffy and LaSalle, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), rendered July 25, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California *679 (386 US 738 [1967]) in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the 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 Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; 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]).

Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Hinds-Radix, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 678, 997 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-humphrey-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack