People v. Ward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ward

69 A.D.3d 661, 891 N.Y.2d 281

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 661 (People v. Ward) 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. Ward, 69 A.D.3d 661, 891 N.Y.2d 281 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[662]*662We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous 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 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

The issues raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief do not raise any nonfrivolous issues. We note that the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of the contentions in his supplemental pro se brief concerning the County Court’s denial of his request for the assignment of new counsel during a preplea suppression hearing (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]; People v Thompson, 63 AD3d 1181, 1182 [2009]; People v Opoku, 61 AD3d 705 [2009]). Santucci, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

[662]*662We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous 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 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

The issues raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief do not raise any nonfrivolous issues. We note that the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of the contentions in his supplemental pro se brief concerning the County Court’s denial of his request for the assignment of new counsel during a preplea suppression hearing (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]; People v Thompson, 63 AD3d 1181, 1182 [2009]; People v Opoku, 61 AD3d 705 [2009]). Santucci, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 661, 891 N.Y.2d 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ward-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack