Opinion
2018–04463
06-10-2020
PEOPLE of State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard CARFORA, Appellant.
Joseph A. Hanshe, Sayville, NY, for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.
Joseph A. Hanshe, Sayville, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RUTH C. BALKIN, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Barbara Kahn, J.), dated March 9, 2018, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C. 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 Joseph A. Hanshe 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 Steven A. Feldman, 1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404, Manhasset, NY, 11030, 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 August 13, 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] ).
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 because it fails to analyze potential appellate issues and highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal (see People v. Dimon, 164 A.D.3d 600, 601, 78 N.Y.S.3d 683 ; People v. Solomon, 162 A.D.3d 912, 913, 80 N.Y.S.3d 81 ; People v. Munoz, 161 A.D.3d 1011, 73 N.Y.S.3d 758 ; People v. McNair, 110 A.D.3d 742, 743, 971 N.Y.S.2d 889 ). The brief, which contained a limited statement of the facts, failed to analyze whether any potential issues arose from the assessment of points on the risk assessment instruments and the appellant's subsequent designation as a level three sex offender. Counsel states a bare conclusion that, after reviewing any potential issues and case law, there are no meritorious issues on this appeal, without discussing the basis for this conclusion or citing any cases or legal authority in support thereof (see People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606, 610–611, 419 N.Y.S.2d 913, 393 N.E.2d 987 ; People v. Murray, 169 A.D.3d 227, 232, 93 N.Y.S.3d 694 ; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d 252, 258, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676 ). Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel fulfilled his obligations under Anders v. California, we must assign new counsel to represent the defendant (see People v. McNair, 110 A.D.3d at 743, 971 N.Y.S.2d 889 ; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 258, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676 ).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., BALKIN, CHAMBERS and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.