People v. Sofo

Decision Date26 August 2020
Docket NumberS.C.I. No. 15-00575,2018–08672
Citation127 N.Y.S.3d 804 (Mem),186 A.D.3d 873
Parties The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Frank SOFO, appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

George M. Groglio, Port Chester, NY, for appellant.

Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco of counsel), for respondent.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Susan Cacace, J.), rendered May 22, 2018, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous convictions of promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child and possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child. 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 George M. Groglio for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant 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 Anthony J. Messina, 282 Katonah Avenue, # 156, Katonah, N.Y. 10536, 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 October 19, 2018, 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] ).

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, should be accompanied by a brief " ‘reciting the underlying facts and highlighting anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal’ " ( Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d 252, 256, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676, quoting People v. Saunders, 52 A.D.2d 833, 384 N.Y.S.2d 161 ). As this Court has explained, "counsel 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 258, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676 ). "Counsel cannot merely recite the underlying facts, and state a bare conclusion that, after reviewing the record and discussing the case with the client, it is the writer's opinion that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal" ( id. ).

The brief submitted by the appellant's counsel pursuant to ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Erkomaishvili v. Volovoy
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 26, 2020
  • People v. Adams
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 10, 2021
    ...facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal (see People v. Rojas, 188 A.D.3d 726, 131 N.Y.S.3d 614 ; People v. Sofo, 186 A.D.3d 873, 127 N.Y.S.3d 804 ; People v. Parker, 135 A.D.3d 966, 23 N.Y.S.3d 393 ). Counsel merely recites the underlying facts and states a bare conclusio......
  • People v. Regalado
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 17, 2021
    ...a conclusory fashion that counsel sees no appellate issues in the record that might arguably support an appeal (see People v. Sofo, 186 A.D.3d 873, 875, 127 N.Y.S.3d 804 ; People v. Santos, 180 A.D.3d at 942, 115 N.Y.S.3d 907 ; People v. James, 158 A.D.3d 820, 822, 68 N.Y.S.3d 906 ; Matter ......
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 26, 2020

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