People v. Perez-Mendez

2022 NY Slip Op 03134
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 11, 2022
Docket2021-05217
StatusPublished

This text of 2022 NY Slip Op 03134 (People v. Perez-Mendez) 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. Perez-Mendez, 2022 NY Slip Op 03134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

People v Perez-Mendez (2022 NY Slip Op 03134)
People v Perez-Mendez
2022 NY Slip Op 03134
Decided on May 11, 2022
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on May 11, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI
REINALDO E. RIVERA
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

2021-05217

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Carlos Perez-Mendez, appellant.


Leon H. Tracy, Jericho, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert G. Bogle, J.), dated June 23, 2021, which, after a hearing, designated him a level one sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738), and, 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.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

DILLON, J.P., IANNACCI, RIVERA and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
People v. Gonzalez
393 N.E.2d 987 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
People v. Paige
54 A.D.2d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re Giovanni S.
89 A.D.3d 252 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2022 NY Slip Op 03134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perez-mendez-nyappdiv-2022.