Court Opinion

ID: 3005440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-29 16:07:06.102178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:13.284356
License: Public Domain

People v Henriquez (2015 NY Slip Op 06992)

People v Henriquez

2015 NY Slip Op 06992

Decided on September 29, 2015

Appellate Division, First 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 September 29, 2015

Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

15741 1581/09

[*1] The People of the State of New York, Respondent, —
vHerbert Henriquez, Defendant-Appellant.

Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (C. Scott McAbee of counsel), for appellant.

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered April 20, 2010, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of four to eight years, held in abeyance, the motion by assigned counsel to be relieved denied without prejudice to renewal, and counsel directed to attempt to communicate with defendant forthwith concerning any issues that may be raised concerning defendant's failure to be apprised that he might be deported as a consequence of his guilty plea to a felony and the possible consequences of pursuing an appeal raising such issues, and advising defendant that he has 60 days from the date of this order to file a pro se supplemental brief if he so chooses.
Counsel's letter to defendant, with a copy of the brief filed with this Court, does not meet the requirements of People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 [1976]. Counsel has not sufficiently established that defendant has been made aware of any potential issues under People v Peque (22 NY3d 168 [2013]), that he has made an informed decision not to raise any such issues, and that he has been informed that he has a right to raise such issues in a pro se brief if he so chooses.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
CLERK