Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ravi Kumar, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-10-01
Citations: 121 A.D.3d 713
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ravi Kumar, Appellant.
Judges: Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Hinds-Radix, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 713–714

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ravi Kumar, Appellant.
[993 NYS2d 168]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered November 22, 2010, convicting him of reckless endangerment 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 Judah Maltz 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 Mark Diamond, Esq., Box 287356, Yorkville Station, New York, N.Y., 10128, 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 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 March 1, 2012, 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 nonfrivolous issues exist, including, but not necessarily limited to, the validity of the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal and, if such waiver is found to be invalid, whether the sentence imposed was excessive. 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 [2011]).
Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Hinds-Radix, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.