Opinion
2017–07071 Ind. No. 279/16
04-21-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Dijela NIKAC, appellant.
Patrick Michael Megaro, Uniondale, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Kevin C. King and John B. Latella of counsel), for respondent.
Patrick Michael Megaro, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Kevin C. King and John B. Latella of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Helene F. Gugerty, J.), rendered June 9, 2017, convicting her of grand larceny in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing ( Howard E. Sturim, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress her statements to law enforcement officials. 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 Patrick Michael Megaro for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted, and he is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to the new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,
ORDERED that Andrew E. MacAskill, 734 Franklin Ave., # 372, Garden City, New York 11530, is assigned as counsel to perfect 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 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 March 16, 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, 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 Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress her statements to law enforcement officials (see People v. Powell, 184 A.D.3d 878, 878–879, 124 N.Y.S.3d 229 ; People v. McCalla, 160 A.D.3d 662, 664, 74 N.Y.S.3d 307 ; People v. Carlos, 126 A.D.3d 911, 912–913, 2 N.Y.S.3d 910 ), and whether the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ). Accordingly, the assignment of new counsel is warranted (see People v. Stokes, 95 N.Y.2d 633, 638, 722 N.Y.S.2d 217, 744 N.E.2d 1153 ; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d 252, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676 ).
DILLON, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, DUFFY and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.