People v Anderson

Annotate this Case
People v Anderson 2014 NY Slip Op 04780 Decided on June 25, 2014 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 June 25, 2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
JEFFREY A. COHEN
HECTOR D. LASALLE
BETSY BARROS, JJ.
2012-04337
(Ind. No. 8695/02)

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

v

Shawn Anderson, appellant. Scott A. Rosenberg, New York, N.Y. (Joanne Legano Ross of counsel), for appellant.



Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel; Robert Ho on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), entered April 13, 2012, which denied his motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 on his conviction of conspiracy in the second degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon his plea of guilty, on September 3, 2003. 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 order 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).

SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, COHEN, LASALLE and BARROS, 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.