People v Ford

Annotate this Case
People v Ford 2014 NY Slip Op 04786 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
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
PLUMMER E. LOTT
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
2013-03086
2013-03087

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

v

Robert Ford, appellant. (Ind. Nos. 1405/12, 5809/12)



Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Linda Breen of counsel; Gregory Musso on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), both rendered February 28, 2013, convicting him of criminal mischief in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 1405/12 and criminal mischief in the third degree under Indictment No. 5809/12, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. 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 judgments are 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).

MASTRO, J.P., HALL, LOTT, AUSTIN and DUFFY, 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.