People v. Vosper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vosper

156 A.D.3d 919, 65 N.Y.S.3d 775

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 2017·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered January 30, 2014, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is 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 [1967]), 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 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Rivera, J.R, Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, 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, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered January 30, 2014, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is 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 [1967]), 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 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Rivera, J.R, Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

People v. Vosper, 156 A.D.3d 919, 65 N.Y.S.3d 775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

156 A.D.3d 919 (People v. Vosper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related