Opinion
2018–09333 Ind. No. 2300/16
03-10-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Akim ADAMS, appellant.
Joseph A. Hanshe, Sayville, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green and Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.
Joseph A. Hanshe, Sayville, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green and Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, BETSY BARROS, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County ( Mark D. Cohen, J.), rendered June 18, 2018, convicting him of burglary 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 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.
ORDERED that the motion of Joseph A. Hanshe 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 Thomas J. Butler, P.O. Box 665, Melville, New York 11747, 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 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 October 19, 2018, 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]).
The brief submitted by the appellant's assigned counsel pursuant to ( Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ) is deficient because it fails to analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal (see People v. Rojas, 188 A.D.3d 726, 131 N.Y.S.3d 614 ; People v. Sofo, 186 A.D.3d 873, 127 N.Y.S.3d 804 ; People v. Parker, 135 A.D.3d 966, 23 N.Y.S.3d 393 ). Counsel merely recites the underlying facts and states a bare conclusion that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal (see People v. Louis, 186 A.D.3d 875, 127 N.Y.S.3d 774 ; People v. Sofo, 186 A.D.3d at 875, 127 N.Y.S.3d 804 ; People v. Nikac, 175 A.D.3d 1323, 109 N.Y.S.3d 308 ). Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel fulfilled his obligation under Anders, we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant (see People v. Rojas, 188 A.D.3d at 727, 131 N.Y.S.3d 614 ; People v. Sofo, 186 A.D.3d at 875, 127 N.Y.S.3d 804 ; People v. Parker, 135 A.D.3d at 968, 23 N.Y.S.3d 393 ).
DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, BARROS and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.