People v. Portal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Portal

76 A.D.2d 1034, 907 N.Y.S.2d 681

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A.D.2d 1034 (People v. Portal) 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. Portal, 76 A.D.2d 1034, 907 N.Y.S.2d 681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, [1035]*1035Westchester County (R. Bellantoni, J.), rendered January 3, 2008, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (DiBella, J.), upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Ordered that the amended 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 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, [1035]*1035Westchester County (R. Bellantoni, J.), rendered January 3, 2008, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (DiBella, J.), upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Ordered that the amended 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 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 1034, 907 N.Y.S.2d 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-portal-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack