People v. Kinnicutt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kinnicutt

2019 NY Slip Op 9290

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2019

DocketInd. No. 192/17

StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 9290 (People v. Kinnicutt) 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. Kinnicutt, 2019 NY Slip Op 9290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

People v Kinnicutt (2019 NY Slip Op 09290)

People v Kinnicutt

2019 NY Slip Op 09290

Decided on December 24, 2019

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 24, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SHERI S. ROMAN
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2018-04243
(Ind. No. 192/17)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Terry Kinnicutt, appellant.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant.

Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Alexander Fumelli of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Stephen J. Rooney, J.), rendered March 1, 2018, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738), 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), 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.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court

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