People v Brooks

Annotate this Case
People v Brooks 2012 NY Slip Op 08026 Decided on November 21, 2012 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 November 21, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2011-09655
(Ind. No. 1027/10)

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

v

Edward Brooks, appellant.




Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of
counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael
J. Miller of counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (J. Doyle, J.), rendered September 13, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, loitering in the first degree, and unlawful possession of marijuana, 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 he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738), 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; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., BALKIN, AUSTIN and MILLER, 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.