Opinion
S.C.I. Nos. 1307/19 1308/19 Nos. 2019-13539 2019-13540
01-12-2022
The People, etc., respondent, v. Richard Drumgo, appellant. S.C.I. Nos. 1307/19, 1308/19
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Lynn W. L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and William H. Branigan of counsel; Victoria Randall on the brief), for respondent.
Submitted - December 13, 2021
D68265 I/htr
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Lynn W. L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and William H. Branigan of counsel; Victoria Randall on the brief), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P. SHERI S. ROMAN LARA J. GENOVESI DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Jerry Iannece, J., at pleas; Suzanne J. Melendez, J., at sentences), both rendered October 30, 2019, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree under Superior Court Information No. 1307/2019, and attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree under Superior Court Information No. 1308/2019, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 U.S. 738), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, the brief filed by the defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738) was sufficient because it addressed the essential issues in the case and, although the brief did not fully analyze the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal or the enforceability of the waiver, the enforceability or unenforceability of the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal makes no practical difference to the Anders outcome (see People v Morris, 187 A.D.3d 938, 939; People v Murray, 169 A.D.3d 227, 233). Moreover, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on appeal (see People v Murray, 169 A.D.3d at 233). Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 U.S. at 744; People v Murray, 169 A.D.3d at 235).
CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, GENOVESI and DOWLING, JJ., concur.