People v. Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moore

301 A.D.2d 539, 752 N.Y.S.2d 901

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 539 (People v. Moore) 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. Moore, 301 A.D.2d 539, 752 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defen[540]*540dant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Braun, J.), rendered May 24, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the 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; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

The defendant has not, nor could he have, raised any non-frivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defen[540]*540dant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Braun, J.), rendered May 24, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the 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; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

The defendant has not, nor could he have, raised any non-frivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 539, 752 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moore-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack