People v. Vincent

2024 NY Slip Op 06219
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 11, 2024
Docket2022-07620
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 06219 (People v. Vincent) 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. Vincent, 2024 NY Slip Op 06219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

People v Vincent (2024 NY Slip Op 06219)
People v Vincent
2024 NY Slip Op 06219
Decided on December 11, 2024
Appellate Division, Second 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 on December 11, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P.
LARA J. GENOVESI
CARL J. LANDICINO
PHILLIP HOM, JJ.

2022-07620
2022-07624
2022-07627

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Frank Vincent, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 90039/21, Docket Nos. 2670C/20, 2674C/20)


Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sam Feldman of counsel), for appellant.

Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Thomas B. Litsky of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from three judgments of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mario F. Mattei, J.), all rendered August 3, 2022, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Superior Court Information No. 90039/21, petit larceny under Docket No. 2670C/20, and petit larceny under Docket No. 2674C/20, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252; People v Paige, 54 AD3d 631; cf. People v Ganzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., GENOVESI, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
People v. Gonzalez
393 N.E.2d 987 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
People v. Ortiz
54 A.D.3d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re Giovanni S.
89 A.D.3d 252 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 06219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vincent-nyappdiv-2024.