People v Rosado

Annotate this Case
People v Rosado 2011 NY Slip Op 09680 Decided on December 27, 2011 Appellate Division, Second 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 27, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P.
PLUMMER E. LOTT
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
2010-04530
(Ind. No. 6631/06)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Jose Rosado, appellant.




Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant
pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard
Joblove, Amy Appelbaum, and
Linda Breen of counsel; Robert Ho
on the brief), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J., at plea; Chun, J., at sentence), rendered March 26, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the second 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.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of defense counsel's brief filed pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738) (see Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],AD3d, 2011 NY Slip Op 07846 [2d Dept 2011]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

The defendant has not raised, nor could he have raised, any nonfrivolous issues in his pro se supplemental brief.
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., LOTT, AUSTIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

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.