People v. Ross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ross

2020 NY Slip Op 2048

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2020

DocketInd. No. 11304/07

StatusPublished

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 2048 (People v. Ross) 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. Ross, 2020 NY Slip Op 2048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

People v Ross (2020 NY Slip Op 02048)

People v Ross

2020 NY Slip Op 02048

Decided on March 25, 2020

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 March 25, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

2015-04867
(Ind. No. 11304/07)

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

v

Ezikiel Ross, appellant.

Martin Geoffrey Goldberg, Franklin Square, NY, for appellant.

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

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Danny K. Chun, J.), imposed March 12, 2015, upon his convictions of sexual abuse in the first degree (five counts) and assault in the second degree (two counts). 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 resentence 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).

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, CHRISTOPHER and WOOTEN, 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