People v. Ouedraogo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ouedraogo

79 A.D.3d 1075, 914 N.Y.S.2d 902

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 1075 (People v. Ouedraogo) 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. Ouedraogo, 79 A.D.3d 1075, 914 N.Y.S.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chin-Brandt, J.), both rendered August 12, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the third degree under superior court information No. 1796/09 and attempted robbery in the first degree under superior court information No. 1797/09, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s assigned counsel has informed this Court that the defendant has not authorized counsel to raise issues which could result in the vacatur of his pleas. We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no remaining nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeals. 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]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chin-Brandt, J.), both rendered August 12, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the third degree under superior court information No. 1796/09 and attempted robbery in the first degree under superior court information No. 1797/09, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s assigned counsel has informed this Court that the defendant has not authorized counsel to raise issues which could result in the vacatur of his pleas. We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no remaining nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeals. 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]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 1075, 914 N.Y.S.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ouedraogo-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack