People v Julu Ross
Annotate this Case
People v Ross
2003 NY Slip Op 20181 [2 AD3d 1490]
Decided on December 31, 2003
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on December 31, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
1567 KA 01-00827
[*1]PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, ORDER
v
JULU ROSS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ark, J.), entered March 3, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and grand larceny in the fourth degree.
FREDERICK P. LESTER, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HOWARD R. RELIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O'BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Entered: December 31, 2003JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Decided on December 31, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
1567 KA 01-00827
[*1]PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, ORDER
v
JULU ROSS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ark, J.), entered March 3, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and grand larceny in the fourth degree.
FREDERICK P. LESTER, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HOWARD R. RELIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O'BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Entered: December 31, 2003JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
