People v. Morton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Morton

45 A.D.3d 1191, 846 N.Y.S.2d 466

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 1191 (People v. Morton) 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. Morton, 45 A.D.3d 1191, 846 N.Y.S.2d 466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), rendered September 9, 2005, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Following a four-day trial at which 10 witnesses testified, defendant was convicted of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. At sentencing, defendant executed a waiver of his right to appeal and was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 4V2 to 9 years. Defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]).

Upon our review of the record, we perceive at least one issue of arguable merit regarding the validity of defendant’s waiver of appeal (see People v Lewis, 29 AD3d 1076, 1076-1077 [2006]; People v Santalucia, 9 AD3d 740, 740-741 [2004]; see also People v Smith, 32 AD3d 553, 555-556 [2006]), and a determination of the enforceability of defendant’s waiver may bring up for review any meritorious issues regarding, among other things, the pretrial procedures and hearings and the four-day trial which resulted in defendant’s conviction (see People v Santalucia, 9 AD3d at 740; see also Matter of Taylor v Fry, 42 AD3d 680, 681 [2007]). Accordingly, the application of defendant’s current [1192]*1192counsel 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 Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain and Mugglin, 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

J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), rendered September 9, 2005, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Following a four-day trial at which 10 witnesses testified, defendant was convicted of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. At sentencing, defendant executed a waiver of his right to appeal and was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 4V2 to 9 years. Defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]).

Upon our review of the record, we perceive at least one issue of arguable merit regarding the validity of defendant’s waiver of appeal (see People v Lewis, 29 AD3d 1076, 1076-1077 [2006]; People v Santalucia, 9 AD3d 740, 740-741 [2004]; see also People v Smith, 32 AD3d 553, 555-556 [2006]), and a determination of the enforceability of defendant’s waiver may bring up for review any meritorious issues regarding, among other things, the pretrial procedures and hearings and the four-day trial which resulted in defendant’s conviction (see People v Santalucia, 9 AD3d at 740; see also Matter of Taylor v Fry, 42 AD3d 680, 681 [2007]). Accordingly, the application of defendant’s current [1192]*1192counsel 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 Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain and Mugglin, 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)

45 A.D.3d 1191, 846 N.Y.S.2d 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morton-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack