People v Sealy

Annotate this Case
People v Sealy 2019 NY Slip Op 02124 Decided on March 20, 2019 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 March 20, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
SHERI S. ROMAN
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
2017-00347

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

v

Ashaki Sealy, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 2174/16)



Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Lynn W. L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sharen D. Hudson, J.), rendered October 31, 2016, convicting her of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon her 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 the appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see id.; People v Murray, _____ AD3d _____, 2019 NY Slip Op 01101 [2d Dept 2019]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

AUSTIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, ROMAN, MALTESE and CONNOLLY, 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.