Court Opinion

ID: 5914195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 04:05:00.629132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:46:07.965266
License: Public Domain

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), rendered December 16, 1986, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted burglary in the third degree. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738) in which he moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.
Ordered that the motion is granted, Howard M. Simms is relieved as attorney for the defendant and he is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,
*495Ordered that Terry De Filippo, of 434 Himrod Street, Brooklyn, New York, 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 of this court, the defendant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal 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.
Based upon this court’s independent review of the record, we conclude that an arguable issue exists with respect to the court’s revocation of a probationary sentence where the charge regarding a violation of probation was brought prior to the expiration or termination of the period of probation but where the finding of violation was made subsequent to the aforesaid expiration or termination (see, Penal Law § 65.00 [2]). Under the circumstances, the motion of the defendant’s assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted and new appellate counsel is assigned (see, People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606; People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906; People v Miller, 99 AD2d 1021). Mollen, P. J., Kunzeman, Spatt and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.