People v. Ramirez-Alvarado

205 A.D.3d 822, 165 N.Y.S.3d 894, 2022 NY Slip Op 03127
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 11, 2022
DocketCOLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.3d 822 (People v. Ramirez-Alvarado) 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. Ramirez-Alvarado, 205 A.D.3d 822, 165 N.Y.S.3d 894, 2022 NY Slip Op 03127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

People v Ramirez-Alvarado (2022 NY Slip Op 03127)
People v Ramirez-Alvarado
2022 NY Slip Op 03127
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
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
SHERI S. ROMAN
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

2021-00236

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

v

Carlos Ramirez-Alvarado, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 1290/20)


Thomas R. Villecco, 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 a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert A. Schwartz, J.), rendered December 18, 2020, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. 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 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), 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).

DUFFY, J.P., ROMAN, MALTESE and FORD, 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)
205 A.D.3d 822, 165 N.Y.S.3d 894, 2022 NY Slip Op 03127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramirez-alvarado-nyappdiv-2022.