Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Johnny Pertillar, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2005-02-28
Citations: 15 A.D.3d 679
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnny Pertillar, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnny Pertillar, Appellant.
[789 NYS2d 921]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered November 25, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second 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 to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.
Ordered that the motion is granted, and Alex Smith, Esq., is relieved as the attorney for the defendant and is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,
Ordered that Matthew B. Tully, Esq., EO. Box 491, Hunter, NY 12442, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,
Ordered that the People are directed to furnish a copy of the stenographic minutes to the new assigned counsel; and it is further,
Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the defendant within 90 days of the date of this decision and order and the People shall serve and file their brief within 120 days of the date of this decision and order; by prior decision and order on motion of this Court, the defendant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on the original papers (including the typewritten stenographic minutes) and on the typewritten 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 potentially nonfrivolous issues exist (see Anders v California, supra at 744). Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]; People v McWilliams, 308 AD2d 599 [2003]). H. Miller, J.E, S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.