Summary
In Harbison, Dr. Simms was also called to testify regarding her examination of the victim in that case, TH. Harbison, 504 Mich. at 243-244.
Summary of this case from People v. BentzOpinion
2017–04949 Ind. No. 820–15
02-13-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Stephan HARBISON, Appellant.
Scott Lockwood, North Babylon, NY, for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.
Scott Lockwood, North Babylon, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
ORDERED that the motion of Scott Lockwood 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 Mark Diamond, Esq., Box 287356, Yorkville Station, NY, 10128, 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 7, 2017, 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] ).
Upon this Court's independent review of the record, we conclude that nonfrivolous issues exist in this case, including, but not necessarily limited to, whether the sentence imposed was lawful (see Penal Law §§ 70.00[2][c], [e] ; [3][b]; 70.06[3][c], [e]; [4][b] ). Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted (see Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d 252, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676 ).
MASTRO, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.