People v. Padilla

Citation2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03668,95 A.D.3d 1038,943 N.Y.S.2d 775
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Edward PADILLA, appellant.
Decision Date08 May 2012
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03668
943 N.Y.S.2d 775
95 A.D.3d 1038

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Edward PADILLA, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

May 8, 2012.


Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Hae Jin Liu, Lois Cullen Valerio, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered March 25, 2010, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned *776 counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 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 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted ( see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493; Matter of Giovanni S. [ Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d 252, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676; People v. Paige, 54 A.D.2d 631, 387 N.Y.S.2d 399; cf. People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606, 419 N.Y.S.2d 913, 393 N.E.2d 987).

RIVERA, J.P., ENG, CHAMBERS, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Corbin
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 8, 2014
    ......The court denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress that handgun.        Inventory searches of an automobile after the lawful arrest of the driver are permissible as an exception to the warrant requirement ( see People v. Padilla, 21 N.Y.3d 268, 272, 970 N.Y.S.2d 486, 992 N.E.2d 414; People v. Gonzalez, 62 N.Y.2d 386, 388–389, 477 N.Y.S.2d 103, 465 N.E.2d 823). The purpose of an inventory search is not to find—i.e., search for—evidence, but “to properly catalogue the contents of the item searched. The specific ......
  • People v. Palmer
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 8, 2012
    ...Slip Op. 03669943 N.Y.S.2d 77595 A.D.3d 1039The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Michael R. PALMER, appellant.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.May 8, Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Barry Stendig of counsel), for appellant.Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brookl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT