Opinion
No. 2022-823 K CR
06-14-2024
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rachel Manzo, Appellant.
Appellate Advocates (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Kings County District Attorney (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
Appellate Advocates (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Kings County District Attorney (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT:: WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J., CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, LISA S. OTTLEY, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Adam D. Perlmutter, J.), rendered September 9, 2022. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposed sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 U.S. 738 [1967]), seeking leave to withdraw as counsel.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see id.; People v Murray, 169 A.D.3d 227 [2019]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 A.D.2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606 [1979]).
Moreover, based upon the record before us, the arguments made by defendant in her supplemental pro se brief do not raise any nonfrivolous issues (see People v Ward, 69 A.D.3d 661 [2010]). To the extent that defendant's complaint about counsel is predicated on factors that do not appear on the face of the record, such as counsel's strategy, advice or preparation, defendant must raise her claim via a CPL 440.10 motion (see People v Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 202 [2013]; People v Haffiz, 19 N.Y.3d 883, 885 [2012]; People v McLean, 15 N.Y.3d 117, 121 [2010]; People v Denny, 95 N.Y.2d 921, 923 [2000]; People v Sun, 74 Misc.3d 136 [A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50297[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
TOUSSAINT, P.J., BUGGS and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.