People v. Casiano
| Decision Date | 03 April 1986 |
| Citation | 67 N.Y.2d 906,492 N.E.2d 1224,501 N.Y.S.2d 808 |
| Parties | , 492 N.E.2d 1224 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pablo CASIANO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order, 489 N.Y.S.2d 852, 111 A.D.2d 105 should be reversed and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for a de novo consideration of defendant's appeal.
Several nonfrivolous issues can be identified in the record of the trial court proceedings which resulted in defendant's conviction. Nevertheless, his assigned appellate counsel filed an Anders/Saunders brief (see, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493; People v. Saunders, 384 N.Y.S.2d 161, 52 A.D.2d 833), claiming that the appeal was frivolous. He did so without (a) consulting with defendant or (b) analyzing the issues presented by the record. Although the Appellate Division, based on its review of defendant's pro se brief, found that the record presented appealable issues, it found none warranted reversal, and affirmed the conviction without assigning new counsel to present the appeal.
Defendant did not waive his right to counsel and the Appellate Division's failure to make a new assignment after discovering nonfrivolous issues were present deprived him of his right to the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. Our decision in People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606, 419 N.Y.S.2d 913, 393 N.E.2d 987 is controlling on the issue and should have been followed (see also, Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821; Anders v. California, supra ). Inexplicably, the District Attorney's brief does not even cite, let alone distinguish, this recent decision or other pertinent decisions discussing this issue. As we have noted before, neither a review of the record by the Appellate Division nor a pro se brief can substitute for the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel (see, People v. Gonzalez, supra, 47 N.Y.2d pp. 610-611, 419 N.Y.S.2d 913, 393 N.E.2d 987). A new assignment of counsel and reconsideration of the appeal is required.
Order reversed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cutbirth v. State
...Curtis v. State, 284 Md. 132, 395 A.2d 464 (1978); Stewart v. Warden, 92 Nev. 588, 555 P.2d 218 (1976); People v. Casiano, 67 N.Y.2d 906, 501 N.Y.S.2d 808, 492 N.E.2d 1224 (1986) (new counsel appointed and reconsideration of appeal The subject was succinctly defined in Stewart v. Warden, su......
-
People v. Clermont
...in another context, review by this Court is no substitute for the single-minded advocacy of counsel ( see People v. Casiano, 67 N.Y.2d 906, 907, 501 N.Y.S.2d 808, 492 N.E.2d 1224). Moreover, without meaningful representation, any conclusions drawn from the record are speculative ( accord Pe......
-
People v. Wells
...use defense counsel would have made of the grand jury testimony if he had been permitted access to it (cf. People v. Casiano, 67 N.Y.2d 906, 907, 501 N.Y.S.2d 808, 492 N.E.2d 1224 ). The People argue that the grand jury testimony had little, if any, effect on the fact-finding determination ......
-
In the Matter of Giovanni S. (anonymous).Admin. For Children's Serv.
...see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 743, 87 S.Ct. 1396; Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. at 83–84, 109 S.Ct. 346; People v. Casiano, 67 N.Y.2d 906, 907, 501 N.Y.S.2d 808, 492 N.E.2d 1224 [where counsel submitted a brief pursuant to Anders without consulting with the defendant or “analyzing the is......