People v. Liccione

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Liccione

94 A.D.3d 777, 941 N.Y.S.2d 508

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

DecidedApril 3, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.3d 777 (People v. Liccione) 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. Liccione, 94 A.D.3d 777, 941 N.Y.S.2d 508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J.), both rendered September 2, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts, one as to each indictment), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. [778]*778Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgments are 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]). Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J.), both rendered September 2, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts, one as to each indictment), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. [778]*778Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgments are 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]). Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 777, 941 N.Y.S.2d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-liccione-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack