People v. Mercado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mercado

112 A.D.2d 1011, 492 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52220

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

DecidedAugust 12, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 1011 (People v. Mercado) 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. Mercado, 112 A.D.2d 1011, 492 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), rendered July 6, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues that could be raised upon 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).

With regard to defendant’s pro se contention that it was error to accept his plea in the absence of any indication that he intended to kill his victim, we note that the plea was to "depraved indifference” murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]). Defendant’s pro se assertions about the inadequacy of counsel are not supported by the record. Defendant is of course free to seek relief pursuant to CPL 440.10, at which time he can attempt to specifically support his contentions concerning the alleged inadequacies of his counsel. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), rendered July 6, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues that could be raised upon 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).

With regard to defendant’s pro se contention that it was error to accept his plea in the absence of any indication that he intended to kill his victim, we note that the plea was to "depraved indifference” murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]). Defendant’s pro se assertions about the inadequacy of counsel are not supported by the record. Defendant is of course free to seek relief pursuant to CPL 440.10, at which time he can attempt to specifically support his contentions concerning the alleged inadequacies of his counsel. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 1011, 492 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mercado-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack