People v. Jerrod R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jerrod R.

67 A.D.3d 1030, 888 N.Y.S.2d 759

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

DecidedNovember 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.3d 1030 (People v. Jerrod R.) 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. Jerrod R., 67 A.D.3d 1030, 888 N.Y.S.2d 759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wong, J), rendered May 1, 2008, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Mullings, J.), upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of one year of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for attempted robbery in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended 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 California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wong, J), rendered May 1, 2008, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Mullings, J.), upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of one year of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for attempted robbery in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended 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 California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 1030, 888 N.Y.S.2d 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jerrod-r-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack