People v. Stokes

• Court: New York Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: LEVINE, J.
• Citation: 95 N.Y.2d 633,744 N.E.2d 1153,722 N.Y.S.2d 217
• Decision Date: 08 February 2001
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROGER STOKES, Appellant.

95 N.Y.2d 633
744 N.E.2d 1153
722 N.Y.S.2d 217

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,
v.
ROGER STOKES, Appellant

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued January 3, 2001.

Decided February 8, 2001.

95 N.Y.2d 634

New York State Defenders Association, Albany (Alfred O'Connor of counsel), for appellant

John R. Trice, District Attorney of Chemung County, Elmira (Charles Metcalf and Adam M. Gee of counsel), for respondent.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SMITH, CIPARICK, WESLEY, ROSENBLATT and GRAFFEO concur.

95 N.Y.2d 635

OPINION OF THE COURT

LEVINE, J.

While an inmate at the Southport Correctional Facility, defendant was accused and convicted after trial of aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate in violation of Penal Law § 240.32, a class E felony, for allegedly spraying a mixture of excrement and urine on a correction counselor. The court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life as a persistent felony offender pursuant to Penal Law § 70.10.

Defendant thereafter filed a notice of appeal and, as an indigent, requested assignment of appellate counsel. The attorney assigned by the Appellate Division filed a six-page, double spaced no-merit brief, requesting that she be relieved of the assignment because, in her estimation, there were no non-frivolous issues upon which to base defendant's appeal. Upon receiving a copy of that brief, defendant submitted two handwritten pro se supplemental briefs in which he argued, among other things, that he should not have been shackled during the course of the trial and that his sentence of 15 years to life for this class E felony was unduly harsh and excessive. In addition, defendant highlighted numerous defects and factual errors within the brief submitted by his assigned appellate counsel. Based upon counsel's representation that there were no non-frivolous issues, the People opted not to submit a responding brief.

The Appellate Division, concluding that there were no non-frivolous issues to be addressed on appeal, granted appellate counsel's request to be relieved of the assignment and unanimously affirmed the judgment of conviction (267 AD2d 718). A Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal. Because the papers submitted by assigned counsel on appeal to the Appellate Division did not adequately safeguard defendant's right to appellate counsel, we now reverse and remit to the Appellate Division for a de novo appeal with new assigned counsel.

Where a State creates an appellate procedure in criminal matters, the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that an indigent criminal defendant be afforded equal rights to appeal

95 N.Y.2d 636

through the representation and advocacy of assigned counsel (see, Evitts v Lucey, 469 US 387; Douglas v California, 372 US 353; People v Hughes, 15 NY2d 172). The one limitation on this constitutional right is that it "does not include the right to bring a frivolous appeal and, concomitantly, does not include the right to counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal" (Smith v Robbins, 528 US 259, 278; see, Anders v California, 386 US 738, 741-742). In the event that assigned counsel determines, after a conscientious review of the record and the applicable law, that an appeal is wholly frivolous, counsel may request permission to be relieved of the assignment (see, Anders, supra, at 741-742, citing Ellis v United States, 356 US 674, 675)

In Anders, the Supreme Court described a procedure by which courts could ensure protection of indigent defendants' constitutional rights in the context of purportedly frivolous appeals (see, Anders v California, supra, at 744; Smith v Robbins, supra, 528 US, at 278 [explaining that the "goal of Anders was to prevent this limitation on the right to appellate counsel from swallowing the right...