People v. Singleton

213 A.D.3d 870, 182 N.Y.S.3d 638, 2023 NY Slip Op 00885
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 15, 2023
DocketInd. No. 375/11
StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.3d 870 (People v. Singleton) 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. Singleton, 213 A.D.3d 870, 182 N.Y.S.3d 638, 2023 NY Slip Op 00885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

People v Singleton (2023 NY Slip Op 00885)
People v Singleton
2023 NY Slip Op 00885
Decided on February 15, 2023
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 February 15, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
WILLIAM G. FORD
JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.

2021-03195
(Ind. No. 375/11)

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

v

Aaron Singleton, appellant.


Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, NY, for appellant.

Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (John Carmody of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barry E. Warhit, J.), dated November 30, 2020, which denied, without a hearing, his motion, in effect, pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (Richard A. Molea, J.) rendered February 9, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence. 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 order 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).

DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, FORD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

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)
213 A.D.3d 870, 182 N.Y.S.3d 638, 2023 NY Slip Op 00885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-singleton-nyappdiv-2023.