People v. Rodriguez

Decision Date19 August 2020
Docket NumberInd. No. 929/17,2018–13778
Citation186 A.D.3d 749,127 N.Y.S.3d 288 (Mem)
Parties The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Joe RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Bruce R. Bekritsky, Mineola, NY, for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Matthew C. Frankel of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert A. Schwartz, J.), rendered September 8, 2017, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm, 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 Bruce R. Bekritsky for leave to withdraw as counsel 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 Andrew E. MacAskill, 734 Franklin Avenue, # 734, Garden City, N.Y. 11530, is assigned as counsel to prosecute 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 April 30, 2019, 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] ).

In reviewing an attorney's motion to be relieved pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, this Court must first " ‘satisfy itself that the attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client's appeal’ " ( Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.] , 89 A.D.3d 252, 255, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676, quoting Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 ). "[C]ounsel must, at a minimum, draw the Court's attention to the relevant evidence, with specific references to the record; identify and assess the efficacy of any significant objections, applications, or motions; and identify possible issues for appeal, with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority" ( Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.] , 89 A.D.3d at 255, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676 ).

The brief submitted by the appellant's counsel pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 is deficient. It does not address, inter alia, the colloquy regarding the defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal, or address whether the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. McCalla , 160 A.D.3d 662, 663, 74 N.Y.S.3d 307 ; People v. Ferretti , 148 A.D.3d 720, 721, 47 N.Y.S.3d 736 ; People v. Swenson , 130 A.D.3d 848, 849, 12 N.Y.S.3d 557 ; People v. Sedita , 113 A.D.3d 638, 639–640, 978 N.Y.S.2d 318 ; cf. People v. Murray , 169 A.D.3d 227, 93 N.Y.S.3d 694 ). Since the defendant did...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • People v. Campbell
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 17, 2021
    ...voluntarily, and intelligently, or the appellant's responses to any of those advisements and inquiries (see People v. Rodriguez, 186 A.D.3d 749, 750, 127 N.Y.S.3d 288 ; People v. Campbell, 183 A.D.3d 599, 121 N.Y.S.3d 636 ; People v. Delarosa, 162 A.D.3d 787, 789, 79 N.Y.S.3d 67 ; People v.......
  • People v. Campbell
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • November 17, 2021
    ... ... he was waiving or the inquiries made of the appellant to ... ensure that the pleas were entered knowingly, voluntarily, ... and intelligently, or the appellant's responses to any of ... those advisements and inquiries (see People v ... Rodriguez, 186 A.D.3d 749, 750; People v ... Campbell, 183 A.D.3d 599; People v Delarosa, ... 162 A.D.3d 787, 789; People v Johnson, 126 A.D.3d ... 916, 917; People v Sedita, 113 A.D.3d 638, 639). In ... addition, the brief fails to provide any details regarding ... the ... ...
  • People v. Reed
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 19, 2020
  • People v. Passantino
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 30, 2022
    ...or operates for a period of three years was excessive (see People v. London, 198 A.D.3d at 922, 152 N.Y.S.3d 845 ; People v. Rodriguez, 186 A.D.3d 749, 750, 127 N.Y.S.3d 288 ). BARROS, J.P., RIVERA, CHAMBERS and WOOTEN, JJ., ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT