People v. Sanford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sanford

60 A.D.3d 1114, 873 N.Y.S.2d 507

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 1114 (People v. Sanford) 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. Sanford, 60 A.D.3d 1114, 873 N.Y.S.2d 507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Ames, J.), rendered January 29, 2008, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant was found to have violated her probation stemming from a grand larceny conviction based on her admitted failure to pay restitution, a condition of that probation. County Court revoked probation and resentenced her to six months in jail. She has since completed this sentence.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of the assignment to represent defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record, counsel’s brief and defendant’s pro se submission, we agree. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed and counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

[1115]*1115Peters, J.P., Kane, Malone Jr., Stein and McCarthy, 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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Ames, J.), rendered January 29, 2008, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant was found to have violated her probation stemming from a grand larceny conviction based on her admitted failure to pay restitution, a condition of that probation. County Court revoked probation and resentenced her to six months in jail. She has since completed this sentence.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of the assignment to represent defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record, counsel’s brief and defendant’s pro se submission, we agree. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed and counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

[1115]*1115Peters, J.P., Kane, Malone Jr., Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 1114, 873 N.Y.S.2d 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sanford-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack