People v. Pedrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pedrow

2017 NY Slip Op 2825, 149 A.D.3d 871, 49 N.Y.S.3d 918

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 12, 2017·No. 2016-00429·Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), rendered December 1, 2015, convicting him of attempted criminal sexual act in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]). Counsel has informed this Court that the defendant has not authorized counsel to raise any issue that would allow him to withdraw his plea. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see id.; People v Rhodes, 128 AD3d 1100 [2015]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), rendered December 1, 2015, convicting him of attempted criminal sexual act in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]). Counsel has informed this Court that the defendant has not authorized counsel to raise any issue that would allow him to withdraw his plea. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see id.; People v Rhodes, 128 AD3d 1100 [2015]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

People v. Pedrow, 2017 NY Slip Op 2825, 149 A.D.3d 871, 49 N.Y.S.3d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 2825 (People v. Pedrow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related