People v. Peterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peterson

284 A.D.2d 556, 727 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6798

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

DecidedJune 25, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 556 (People v. Peterson) 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. Peterson, 284 A.D.2d 556, 727 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Angiolillo, J.), rendered November 4, 1999, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, 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).

Assigned counsel’s contention relating to supplemental pro se briefs is not properly before this Court on direct appeal (see, People v Garcia, 282 AD2d 757; People v Perez, 279 AD2d 640, lv denied 96 NY2d 786). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, 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 (Angiolillo, J.), rendered November 4, 1999, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, 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).

Assigned counsel’s contention relating to supplemental pro se briefs is not properly before this Court on direct appeal (see, People v Garcia, 282 AD2d 757; People v Perez, 279 AD2d 640, lv denied 96 NY2d 786). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 556, 727 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peterson-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack