People v. Rhodes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rhodes

128 A.D.3d 1100, 8 N.Y.S.3d 602

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

DecidedMay 27, 2015

Docket2010-02083

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 1100 (People v. Rhodes) 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. Rhodes, 128 A.D.3d 1100, 8 N.Y.S.3d 602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Firetog, J.), both rendered December 7, 2009, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 2628/07 and burglary in the second degree under indictment No. 7418/07, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgments are 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 [1967]). Counsel has informed this Court that the defendant has not authorized counsel to raise any issue that would allow him to withdraw his pleas. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no remaining nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Richardson, 120 AD3d 719 [2014]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Balkin, J.P., Austin, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Firetog, J.), both rendered December 7, 2009, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 2628/07 and burglary in the second degree under indictment No. 7418/07, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgments are 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 [1967]). Counsel has informed this Court that the defendant has not authorized counsel to raise any issue that would allow him to withdraw his pleas. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no remaining nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Richardson, 120 AD3d 719 [2014]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Balkin, J.P., Austin, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 1100, 8 N.Y.S.3d 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rhodes-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack