Case ID: ad3d_127/html/0984-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Blanchard, Appellant.
    [4 NYS3d 907]
   Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered March 27, 2013, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), and kidnapping in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the motion of Scott M. Bishop for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted, and he is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that John Paul Savoca, P.O. Box 531, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., 10598, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the certified transcript of the proceedings to the new assigned counsel; and it is further,

Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the appellant within 90 days of the date of this decision and order on motion and the respondent shall serve and file its brief within 30 days after the brief on behalf of the appellant is served and filed. By prior decision and order on motion of this Court dated February 6, 2014, the appellant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on the original papers, including a certified transcript of the proceedings, and on the briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other.

Upon this Court’s independent review of the record, we conclude that there are nonfrivolous issues in this case, including, but not necessarily limited to, whether the defendant is entitled to any relief based upon an alleged misunderstanding regarding the scope of the plea of guilty contemplated by the plea agreement. Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]; People v Azor, 113 AD3d 871 [2014]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]).

Balkin, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.