People v. Mendoza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mendoza

45 A.D.3d 784, 844 N.Y.S.2d 901

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 784 (People v. Mendoza) 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. Mendoza, 45 A.D.3d 784, 844 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Marrero, J.), rendered November 13, 2003, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of sodomy in third degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment 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 appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Crane, J.P., Ritter, Fisher, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Marrero, J.), rendered November 13, 2003, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of sodomy in third degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment 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 appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Crane, J.P., Ritter, Fisher, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 784, 844 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mendoza-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack