Narrative Opinion Summary
Judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered by Justice Leslie Crocker Snyder on March 1, 1996, was unanimously affirmed. The application for the appellant’s counsel to withdraw is granted, referencing Anders v. California and People v. Saunders. The court reviewed the record and concurred with the appellant's assigned counsel that no non-frivolous points for appeal exist. Under CPL 460.20, the defendant may request leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by applying to the Chief Judge or a Justice of the Appellate Division, with a submission to the Clerk of the Court. This application must be made within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order, with notice of entry. A denial of the application by the first Judge or Justice is final; no further applications can be made to other Judges or Justices. The court found no abuse of sentencing discretion. Justices Murphy, Sullivan, Tom, Mazzarelli, and Colabella concurred.
Legal Issues Addressed
Finality of Denial of Leave to Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The denial of the application for leave to appeal by the first Judge or Justice is final, precluding further applications.
Reasoning: A denial of the application by the first Judge or Justice is final; no further applications can be made to other Judges or Justices.
Procedure for Seeking Leave to Appeal under CPL 460.20subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant is informed of the procedure to request leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which must be done within thirty days of receiving the order.
Reasoning: Under CPL 460.20, the defendant may request leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by applying to the Chief Judge or a Justice of the Appellate Division, with a submission to the Clerk of the Court. This application must be made within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order, with notice of entry.
Review of Non-Frivolous Points for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviewed the record and agreed with the appellant's counsel that there were no non-frivolous points for appeal.
Reasoning: The court reviewed the record and concurred with the appellant's assigned counsel that no non-frivolous points for appeal exist.
Sentencing Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that there was no abuse of discretion in the sentencing decision.
Reasoning: The court found no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Withdrawal of Counsel under Anders v. Californiasubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted the application for the appellant’s counsel to withdraw after determining there were no non-frivolous points for appeal.
Reasoning: The application for the appellant’s counsel to withdraw is granted, referencing Anders v. California and People v. Saunders.