People v Oliver

Annotate this Case
People v Oliver 2016 NY Slip Op 08400 Decided on December 15, 2016 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: December 15, 2016
106951

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

v

SHAQUAN OLIVER, Also Known as DEUCE, Appellant.

Calendar Date: October 25, 2016
Before: Garry, J.P., Rose, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ.

Matthew C. Hug, Albany, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), for respondent.



MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), rendered March 20, 2014 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the first degree.

In satisfaction of a nine-count superceding indictment charging him with felony murder and other crimes, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. Consistent with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to a 15-year prison term with five years of postrelease supervision, to be served consecutively to the sentence he was serving on a prior conviction. This appeal followed.

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 and defense counsel's brief, we agree. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is affirmed and counsel's request for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys , 113 AD2d 979 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v Stokes , 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Garry, J.P., Rose, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment [*2]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.