People v Ovitt

Annotate this Case
People v Ovitt 2013 NY Slip Op 02605 Decided on April 18, 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: April 18, 2013
104855

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

v

EARL OVITT, Appellant.

Calendar Date: February 25, 2013
Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Spain, McCarthy and Garry, JJ.


Marcy I. Flores, Warrensburg, for appellant.
Kevin C. Kortright, District Attorney, Fort Edward
(Katherine G. Henley of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (McKeighan, J.), rendered October 20, 2011, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In 2007, defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and was sentenced to five years of probation. He was subsequently charged with violating the terms of his probation. He pleaded guilty to the probation violations and waived his right to appeal. Thereafter, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to one year in prison to be followed by one year of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of her assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Upon reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we agree. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed and counsel's request for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD3d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Spain, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. [*2]

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

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.