Court Opinion

ID: 6348288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-09 15:10:56.2405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:47.702536
License: Public Domain

People v Rodriguez (2022 NY Slip Op 03776)

People v Rodriguez

2022 NY Slip Op 03776

Decided on June 9, 2022

Appellate Division, Third Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered:June 9, 2022

112995
[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
vMichael Rodriguez, Appellant.

Calendar Date:May 20, 2022

Before:Garry, P.J., Clark, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and McShan, JJ.

Tina Sodhi, Alternate Public Defender, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), for appellant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Carter, J.), rendered March 30, 2021, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and purportedly waived the right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to 1½ years in prison, to be followed by 1½ years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that may be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record, we find issues of arguable merit pertaining to the validity of the waiver of the right to appeal that may impact other issues that may be raised, such as the severity of the sentence imposed (see People v Stratton, 201 AD3d 1201, 1202 [2022]). Accordingly, without passing judgment on the ultimate merit of these issues, we grant counsel's application for leave to withdraw and assign new counsel to address these issues and any others that the record may disclose (see People v Beaty, 22 NY3d 490, 492-493 [2014]; People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 638-639 [2001]; see generally People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]).
Garry, P.J., Clark, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and McShan, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.