People v. Ramos-Lopez

2018 NY Slip Op 8376
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 6, 2018
Docket109007
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 8376 (People v. Ramos-Lopez) 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. Ramos-Lopez, 2018 NY Slip Op 8376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

People v Ramos-Lopez (2018 NY Slip Op 08376)
People v Ramos-lopez
2018 NY Slip Op 08376
Decided on December 6, 2018
Appellate Division, Third 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 and Entered: December 6, 2018

109007

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

FRANCISCO RAMOS-LOPEZ, Appellant.


Calendar Date: October 26, 2018
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Devine, Clark, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ.

Andrew Kossover, Public Defender, Kingston (Michael K. Gould of counsel), for appellant.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.



MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered November 10, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of driving while intoxicated as a felony and waived his right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement to a prison term of 1 to 3 years and imposed a three-year conditional discharge that would run consecutively to the term of imprisonment. Defendant now appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant upon the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that may be raised upon this appeal. Based upon our review of the record and counsel's brief, we agree. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, and counsel's request for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v Beaty, 22 NY3d 490 [2014]; People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

McCarthy, J.P., Devine, Clark, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.



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

Related

People v. Stokes
744 N.E.2d 1153 (New York Court of Appeals, 2001)
People v. Beaty
5 N.E.3d 983 (New York Court of Appeals, 2014)
People v. Cruwys
113 A.D.2d 979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 8376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramos-lopez-nyappdiv-2018.