People v. Brown
| Decision Date | 02 May 1988 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Richard A. BROWN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lloyd M. Bleecker, New York City, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Deborah Carlin Stevens, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, RUBIN, KOOPER and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.), rendered November 11, 1983, convicting him of robbery 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 to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.
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.
Assigned appellate counsel filed an Anders/Saunders brief ( see, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, supra; People v. Saunders, 52 A.D.2d 833, 384 N.Y.S.2d 161), claiming that the appeal was frivolous. Based upon our independent review of the record, appealable issues exist as to whether the display of a single photograph of the defendant to the complainant Theresa W. was impermissibly suggestive; if so, whether the photographic identification procedure tainted the complainant's subsequent identification at a pretrial lineup; and whether there was an independent basis for her in-court identification of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of Giovanni S. (anonymous).Admin. For Children's Serv.
... ... 2d 433, 437, 369 N.Y.S.2d 87, 330 N.E.2d 53), are granted equal rights to appeal through the representation and advocacy of assigned counsel ( People v. Stokes, 95 N.Y.2d 633, 635636, 722 N.Y.S.2d 217, 744 N.E.2d 1153; see Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 276, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756; Douglas ... California, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396; see People v. Stokes, 95 N.Y.2d at 636, 722 N.Y.S.2d 217, 744 N.E.2d 1153; People v. Brown, 140 A.D.2d 363, 527 N.Y.S.2d 850). If, however, the court is satisfied that counsel has diligently investigated the possible grounds of appeal, and ... ...
-
People v. Murray
... ... No. 1058/17Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.Submitted - October 31, 2018February 13, 2019Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Lynn W.L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Anastasia Spanakos of counsel; Kathleen Halliday on the brief), for respondent.MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.OPINION & ORDER DILLON, J.P.169 A.D.3d 228In this ... ...
-
People v. Barger
... ... Saunders, 52 A.D.2d at 833, 384 N.Y.S.2d 161; see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396; People v. Stokes, 95 N.Y.2d at 637, 722 N.Y.S.2d 217, 744 N.E.2d 1153; People v. Brown, 140 A.D.2d 363, 527 N.Y.S.2d 850).72 A.D.3d 697The factual summary and analysis contained in the brief submitted by the defendant's assigned counsel was limited to a recitation of the circumstances surrounding the defendant's withdrawn plea of guilty. After the withdrawal of the plea, however, a ... ...