People v. Soto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Soto

50 A.D.3d 705, 853 N.Y.S.2d 922

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

DecidedApril 1, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 705 (People v. Soto) 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. Soto, 50 A.D.3d 705, 853 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County [706]*706(Kelly, J.), rendered September 6, 2006, as amended December 13, 2006, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), criminal mischief in the second degree, and driving while intoxicated as a felony, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, 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, 744 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606, 611-612 [1979]).

The defendant has not, nor could he have, raised any nonfrivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief. Spolzino, J.E, Ritter, 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, Rockland County [706]*706(Kelly, J.), rendered September 6, 2006, as amended December 13, 2006, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), criminal mischief in the second degree, and driving while intoxicated as a felony, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, 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, 744 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606, 611-612 [1979]).

The defendant has not, nor could he have, raised any nonfrivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief. Spolzino, J.E, Ritter, Dillon, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 705, 853 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-soto-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack