People v. Lupo

187 A.D.2d 733, 591 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13394
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Lupo. Read the opinion of the Court — 179 A.D.2d 683

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J¡), both rendered July 18, 1988, convicting- him of attempted robbery in the first degree (one count as to each indictment), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgments are 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; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606). The contention raised in the defen[734]*734dant’s supplemental pro se brief has already been determined to be without merit (see, People v Lupo, 179 AD2d 683). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Lupo, 187 A.D.2d 733, 591 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

187 A.D.2d 733 (People v. Lupo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
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)
People v. Lupo
179 A.D.2d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)