People v. Laukam

2019 NY Slip Op 3080
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 24, 2019
Docket2013-05193
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 3080 (People v. Laukam) 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. Laukam, 2019 NY Slip Op 3080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

People v Laukam (2019 NY Slip Op 03080)
People v Laukam
2019 NY Slip Op 03080
Decided on April 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 April 24, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

2013-05193

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

v

Yordy Laukam, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 2383/12)


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Kendra L. Hutchinson of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Christopher Blira-Koessler of counsel; Lorrie A. Zinno on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pauline Mullings, J.), rendered April 22, 2013, convicting him of attempted burglary 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.; People v Murray, 169 AD3d 227; People v Singleton, 129 AD3d 871; 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., HINDS-RADIX, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, 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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
People v. Singleton
129 A.D.3d 871 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
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)
2019 NY Slip Op 3080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-laukam-nyappdiv-2019.