People v. Matos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Matos

27 A.D.3d 778, 810 N.Y.S.2d 250

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 778 (People v. Matos) 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. Matos, 27 A.D.3d 778, 810 N.Y.S.2d 250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered April 4, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a 19-count indictment and a pending petit larceny charge, defendant waived his right to appeal and pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. Defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of 10½ years to life. On appeal, defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record and defendant’s pro se submission, we disagree. Defendant raises an issue as to whether the pending petit larceny charge was dismissed in accordance with the plea agreement. Inasmuch as the record reveals at least one issue of arguable merit, defense counsel’s application to be relieved of his assignment is granted and new counsel will be assigned to address any issues that the record may disclose (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 636 [2001]; People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

[779]*779Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered April 4, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a 19-count indictment and a pending petit larceny charge, defendant waived his right to appeal and pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. Defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of 10½ years to life. On appeal, defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record and defendant’s pro se submission, we disagree. Defendant raises an issue as to whether the pending petit larceny charge was dismissed in accordance with the plea agreement. Inasmuch as the record reveals at least one issue of arguable merit, defense counsel’s application to be relieved of his assignment is granted and new counsel will be assigned to address any issues that the record may disclose (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 636 [2001]; People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

[779]*779Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 778, 810 N.Y.S.2d 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-matos-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack