Court Opinion

ID: 6331116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-13 19:09:57.091722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:08.594245
License: Public Domain

People v Quinones (2022 NY Slip Op 02435)

People v Quinones

2022 NY Slip Op 02435

Decided on April 13, 2022

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 April 13, 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.

2019-11763

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vAbraham Quinones, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 4963/19)

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Lynn W. L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ellen Edwards, J.), rendered September 25, 2019, convicting him of burglary 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), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, the brief filed by the defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738) was sufficient because it addressed the essential issues in this case. Although the brief failed to analyze the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal and the enforceability of the waiver, here the enforceability or unenforceability of the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal makes no practical difference to the Anders outcome (see People v Morris, 187 AD3d 938, 939; People v Warney, 186 AD3d 1273; People v Murray, 169 AD3d 227, 233). Moreover, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on appeal (see People v Murray, 169 AD3d at 235).
Accordingly, counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A], 89 AD3d 252; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631).
DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, MALTESE and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court