PeoplevMcCorkle

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 30, 2014
Docket106019
StatusPublished

This text of PeoplevMcCorkle (PeoplevMcCorkle) 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
PeoplevMcCorkle, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: October 30, 2014 106019 ________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DARRELL McCORKLE, Appellant. ________________________________

Calendar Date: September 16, 2014

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ.

__________

Matthew C. Hug, Troy, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A. Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), rendered March 8, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a pending 11-count indictment against him, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant was adjudicated a second felony offender and was sentenced, as agreed, to a prison term of 5½ years to be followed by postrelease supervision of five years. He appealed from the judgment of conviction. Defendant also made a pro se motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, which County Court denied without a hearing, and this Court declined to permit an appeal therefrom (2014 NY Slip Op 81478[U] [2014]). -2- 106019

Defense counsel now seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the direct appeal, arguing that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised. After reviewing the record, defense counsel's brief and defendant's pro se submission, we agree. Thus, the judgment of conviction is affirmed and defense counsel's application for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v Ball, 8 AD3d 818, 819 [2004]; People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court

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

Related

People v. Stokes
744 N.E.2d 1153 (New York Court of Appeals, 2001)
People v. Ball
8 A.D.3d 818 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Cruwys
113 A.D.2d 979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
PeoplevMcCorkle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peoplevmccorkle-nyappdiv-2014.