Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jamaal K. Dudley, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-11-12
Citations: 133 A.D.3d 682
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamaal K. Dudley, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 682–683

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamaal K. Dudley, Appellant.
[18 NYS3d 874]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Quinn, J.), rendered June 11, 2014, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon 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 for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.
Ordered that the motion of Bruce R. Bekritsky for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant is granted, and he is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to the appellant's new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,
Ordered that Leon H. Tracy, Esq., 366 North Broadway, Suite 410, #D9, Jericho, N.Y., 11753, is assigned as counsel to prosecute 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 appellant's 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 this decision and order, and the People shall serve and file their brief within 120 days of this decision and order. By prior decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 14, 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 validly waived his right to appeal and whether those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements to law enforcement officials were properly denied (see People v Laviscount, 116 AD3d 976 [2014]). Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 638 [2001]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252, 254-261 [2011]). Chambers, J.P., Hall, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.