People v. Stroman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stroman

87 A.D.3d 1224, 929 N.Y.2d 890

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.3d 1224 (People v. Stroman) 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. Stroman, 87 A.D.3d 1224, 929 N.Y.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

As a result of his participation in a home invasion, defendant was charged in an indictment with numerous crimes. Following extended pretrial proceedings, he pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree in satisfaction of the indictment. Thereafter, in accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to six years in prison and five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record, appellate counsel’s brief and defendant’s [1225]*1225pro se submission, we conclude that there are a number of issues of arguable merit, including the propriety of County Court’s suppression ruling, that warrant further examination (see People v Roots, 1 AD3d 795, 795 [2003]). Accordingly, without passing judgment on the ultimate merit of such issues, we grant counsel’s request for leave to withdraw and assign new counsel to address this issue and any others that the record may disclose (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]; People v Smith, 32 AD3d 553 [2006]; People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Mercure, J.E, Peters, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.

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

As a result of his participation in a home invasion, defendant was charged in an indictment with numerous crimes. Following extended pretrial proceedings, he pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree in satisfaction of the indictment. Thereafter, in accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to six years in prison and five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record, appellate counsel’s brief and defendant’s [1225]*1225pro se submission, we conclude that there are a number of issues of arguable merit, including the propriety of County Court’s suppression ruling, that warrant further examination (see People v Roots, 1 AD3d 795, 795 [2003]). Accordingly, without passing judgment on the ultimate merit of such issues, we grant counsel’s request for leave to withdraw and assign new counsel to address this issue and any others that the record may disclose (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]; People v Smith, 32 AD3d 553 [2006]; People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Mercure, J.E, Peters, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 1224, 929 N.Y.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stroman-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack