People v Woodhouse

Annotate this Case
People v Woodhouse 2013 NY Slip Op 07214 Decided on November 7, 2013 Appellate Division, Third 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 and Entered: November 7, 2013
104591

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

SCOTT P. WOODHOUSE, Appellant.

Calendar Date: September 18, 2013
Before: Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein and Spain, JJ.


Kevin J. Bauer, Albany, for appellant, and appellant
pro se.
Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Susan
Rider-Ulacco of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered July 22, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while ability impaired by drugs.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of driving while ability impaired by drugs, as a felony. Consistent with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to six months in jail, five years of probation and a $1,000 fine [FN1]. Defendant now appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record, counsel's brief and defendant's pro se submission, we agree. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed and counsel's request for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein and Spain, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted. Footnotes

Footnote 1: Notably, defendant's probation was subsequently revoked and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.



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.