People v. Sorto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sorto

65 A.D.3d 1169, 885 N.Y.S.2d 211

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.3d 1169 (People v. Sorto) 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. Sorto, 65 A.D.3d 1169, 885 N.Y.S.2d 211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), rendered April 4, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is 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 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

The defendant has not, nor could he have, raised any nonfrivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief (see People v Williams, 63 AD3d 1183 [2009]; People v Moriah, 52 AD3d 534 [2008]). Spolzino, J.P., Dillon, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), rendered April 4, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is 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 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

The defendant has not, nor could he have, raised any nonfrivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief (see People v Williams, 63 AD3d 1183 [2009]; People v Moriah, 52 AD3d 534 [2008]). Spolzino, J.P., Dillon, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 1169, 885 N.Y.S.2d 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sorto-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack