People v. Rich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rich

265 A.D.2d 582, 696 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10763

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 582 (People v. Rich) 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. Rich, 265 A.D.2d 582, 696 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered April 7, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree under Indictment No. 97-00607, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered April 7, 1998, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his prior conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 94-00151.

Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are 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; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered April 7, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree under Indictment No. 97-00607, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered April 7, 1998, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his prior conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 94-00151.

Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are 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; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 582, 696 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rich-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack