Court Opinion

ID: 4585708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-11-12 20:06:15.954587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:42.463996
License: Public Domain

People v Williams (2020 NY Slip Op 06563)

People v Williams

2020 NY Slip Op 06563

Decided on November 12, 2020

Appellate Division, Second 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 on November 12, 2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
JEFFREY A. COHEN
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

2020-00281	ON MOTION
 (Ind. No. 18-530)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vPatrick Williams, appellant.

Andrew W. Sayegh, Yonkers, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barry E. Warhit, J.), rendered November 7, 2019, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (five counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 U.S. 738), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.
ORDERED that the motion of Andrew E. Sayegh for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant 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 Thomas T. Keating, 39A Cedar Street, Dobbs Ferry, NY, 10522, 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 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 10, 2020, 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. The parties are directed to file one original and five duplicate hard copies, and one digital copy, of their respective briefs, and to serve one hard copy on each other (see 22 NYCRR 1250.9[a][4]; [c][1]).
In reviewing an attorney's motion to be relieved pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738), this Court must first "'satisfy itself that the attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client's appeal'" (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252, 255, quoting Penson v Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83). As this Court explained in Matter of Giovanni S. (Jasmin A.), "counsel must, at a minimum, draw [*2]the Court's attention to the relevant evidence, with specific references to the record; identify and assess the efficacy of any significant objections, applications, or motions; and identify possible issues for appeal, with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority" (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d at 258).
The brief submitted by the appellant's counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738) is deficient because it fails to analyze potentially nonfrivolous appellate issues—including, but not necessarily limited to, whether the defendant's sentence was excessive—with reference to relevant legal authority (see People v Espinoza, 186 AD3d 1242).
Moreover, upon this Court's independent review of the record, we conclude that nonfrivolous issues exist, including, but not necessarily limited to, whether the defendant's purported appeal waiver is valid and whether the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Corley, 186 AD3d 1239).
Accordingly, under the circumstances, the assignment of new counsel is warranted (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 638).
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN, CONNOLLY and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court