People v. Roman

2019 NY Slip Op 4000
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 22, 2019
Docket2017-11806
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 4000 (People v. Roman) 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. Roman, 2019 NY Slip Op 4000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

People v Roman (2019 NY Slip Op 04000)
People v Roman
2019 NY Slip Op 04000
Decided on May 22, 2019
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 22, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
ROBERT J. MILLER
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

2017-11806
2017-11807

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

v

Diego Roman, appellant. (Ind. Nos. 8973/16, 10169/16)


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Lynn W. L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; Robert Ho on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew J. D'Emic, J.), both rendered September 11, 2017, convicting him of burglary in the first degree under Indictment No. 8973/16 and criminal contempt in the first degree under Indictment No. 10169/16, respectively, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. 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 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), and upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeals. 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).

MASTRO, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.

ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino 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)
2019 NY Slip Op 4000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roman-nyappdiv-2019.