People v. Hubbard

• Citation: 99 A.D.3d 942,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06973,951 N.Y.S.2d 909
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ronald HUBBARD, appellant.
• Decision Date: 17 October 2012
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

99 A.D.3d 942
951 N.Y.S.2d 909
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06973

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Ronald HUBBARD, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Oct. 17, 2012.

Keith O'Halloran, Westhampton Beach, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Miller of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (J. Doyle, J.), rendered January 13, 2011, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second 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 Keith O'Halloran for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant is granted, and he is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

ORDERED that Richard L. Herzfeld, 104 W. 40th Street, 20th Floor, New York, N.Y., 10018, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

ORDERED that the People are directed to furnish a copy of the certified transcript of the proceedings to the 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 People shall serve and file their brief within 30 days *910after the brief on behalf of the appellant is served and filed. By prior decision and order on motion of this Court dated May 9, 2011, 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, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other.

Upon this Court's independent review of the record, we conclude that nonfrivolous issues exist, including, but not necessarily limited to, whether the County Court properly imposed restitution where the plea minutes do not indicate that a plea of guilty was negotiated with terms that included restitution as a component of the sentence ( see People v. Gibson, 88 A.D.3d 1012, 931 N.Y.S.2d 530;People v. Ortega, 61 A.D.3d 705, 706, 875 N.Y.S.2d 909;People v. Kegel, 55 A.D.3d 625, 867 N.Y.S.2d 96;People v. Henderson, 44 A.D.3d 873,...