People v. Taveras

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Taveras

141 A.D.2d 780, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6940

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

DecidedJune 20, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 141 A.D.2d 780 (People v. Taveras) 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. Taveras, 141 A.D.2d 780, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.), rendered April 10, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, 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 meritorious 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; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

[781]*781We have also considered the contentions raised in the defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and have found them to be devoid of merit. Mangano, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and Balletta, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.), rendered April 10, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, 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 meritorious 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; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

[781]*781We have also considered the contentions raised in the defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and have found them to be devoid of merit. Mangano, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 780, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-taveras-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack