Opinion
July 16, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred W. Eggert, J.).
Defendant's counsel, in purported compliance with Anders v California ( 386 U.S. 738, reh denied 388 U.S. 924) and People v Saunders (supra), has submitted a brief urging that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Defendant has responded by submitting a pro se brief on his own behalf, arguing that the People failed to disprove his agency defense in this narcotics sale transaction beyond a reasonable doubt. We find the merit of this contention sufficiently colorable to warrant its presentation by "an active advocate in behalf of his client" (Anders v. California, supra, at 744) and direct that the appeal go forward accordingly (see, People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606).
Concur — Sandler, J.P., Carro, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.