People v. Lott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lott

184 A.D.2d 661

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

DecidedJune 15, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 661 (People v. Lott) 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. Lott, 184 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated March 1, 1990, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court, rendered February 4, 1985, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order 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 the appeal from the order dated March 1, 1990. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

We also find the argument raised by the appellant in his supplemental pro se brief to be frivolous. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated March 1, 1990, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court, rendered February 4, 1985, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order 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 the appeal from the order dated March 1, 1990. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

We also find the argument raised by the appellant in his supplemental pro se brief to be frivolous. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lott-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack