People v. Tetreault

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tetreault

1 A.D.2d 805, 767 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1 A.D.3d 805, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12648

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 805 (People v. Tetreault) 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. Tetreault, 1 A.D.2d 805, 767 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1 A.D.3d 805, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Smith, J.), rendered August 9, 2002, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree.

Defendant’s appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Our review of the record, defense counsel’s brief and defendant’s pro se submissions reveals the existence of various potential issues of “arguable merit” (People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see People v Adams, 283 AD2d 671 [2001]), including the sufficiency of the plea allocution. Accordingly, counsel’s application to be relieved is granted and new counsel will be assigned to address any issues that the record may disclose (see People v Cruwys, supra).

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, 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

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Smith, J.), rendered August 9, 2002, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree.

Defendant’s appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Our review of the record, defense counsel’s brief and defendant’s pro se submissions reveals the existence of various potential issues of “arguable merit” (People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see People v Adams, 283 AD2d 671 [2001]), including the sufficiency of the plea allocution. Accordingly, counsel’s application to be relieved is granted and new counsel will be assigned to address any issues that the record may disclose (see People v Cruwys, supra).

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, 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)

1 A.D.2d 805, 767 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1 A.D.3d 805, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tetreault-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack