People v. Sutton

2019 NY Slip Op 2751
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 11, 2019
Docket108741
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 2751 (People v. Sutton) 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. Sutton, 2019 NY Slip Op 2751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

People v Sutton (2019 NY Slip Op 02751)
People v Sutton
2019 NY Slip Op 02751
Decided on April 11, 2019
Appellate Division, Third 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 and Entered: April 11, 2019

108741

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

ALIJUAON SUTTON, Appellant.


Calendar Date: March 15, 2019
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Mulvey, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.

Todd G. Monahan, Schenectady, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.



MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Sypniewski, J.), rendered May 4, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court information charging him with attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. He pleaded guilty to that charge and waived his right to appeal. He was thereafter sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement as an admitted second violent felony offender to a six-year prison term, followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now 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 and counsel's brief, we agree. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed and counsel's request for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v Beaty, 22 NY3d 490 [2014]; People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Mulvey, Rumsey and Pritzker, 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

Related

People v. Stokes
744 N.E.2d 1153 (New York Court of Appeals, 2001)
People v. Beaty
5 N.E.3d 983 (New York Court of Appeals, 2014)
People v. Cruwys
113 A.D.2d 979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 2751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sutton-nyappdiv-2019.