People v Fanelli

Annotate this Case
People v Fanelli 2015 NY Slip Op 08435 Decided on November 18, 2015 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 18, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
MARK C. DILLON
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
2009-02124
(Ind. No. 206/07)

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

v

Ronald Fanelli, appellant.



Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Barry Stendig of counsel), for appellant, and

appellant pro se.

Daniel L. Master, Jr., Acting District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Paul M. Tarr of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered April 15, 2008, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), 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 we have also reviewed the defendant's pro se supplemental brief. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Hardy, 130 AD3d 753; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252).

RIVERA, J.P., DILLON, CHAMBERS and LASALLE, 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.