Opinion
Ind. No. 391/19 No. 2021-02321
01-12-2022
The People, etc., respondent, v. Chacko Varghese, appellant. Ind. No. 391/19
Stephen R. Mahler, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant. Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Cristin N. Connell of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Submitted - December 13, 2021
D68233 G/afa
Stephen R. Mahler, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant.
Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Cristin N. Connell of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P. SHERI S. ROMAN LARA J. GENOVESI DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Howard E. Sturim, J.), rendered March 3, 2021, convicting him of aggravated driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2-a)(b), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 U.S. 738), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.
ORDERED that the motion of Stephen R. Mahler for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant is granted, and he is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further, ORDERED that Joseph DeFelice, 125-10 Queens Boulevard, Suite 302, Kew Gardens, NY 11415, 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 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 order dated March 16, 2021, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted an application pursuant to CPL 380.55 for poor person relief. By prior decision and order on motion dated April 2, 2021, this Court directed that the appeal 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 upload, through the digital portal on this Court's website, digital copies of their respective briefs, with proof of service of one hard copy on each other (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[a]).
An appellate court's role in reviewing an attorney's motion to be relieved pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738) consists of two separate and distinct steps (see People v Murray, 169 A.D.3d 227, 231-232). Step one requires the appellate court to perform "[an] evaluation of assigned counsel's brief, which must, to be adequate, discuss 'relevant evidence, with specific references to the record; identify and assess the efficacy of any significant objections, applications, or motions; and identify possible issues for appeal, with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority" (id at 232, quoting Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d 252, 258). If the court is satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief, the court reaches step two, which requires the court to perform "an 'independent review of the record' to determine whether 'counsel's assessment that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal is correct'" (People v Murray, 169 A.D.3d at 232, quoting Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 258).
Here, the brief submitted by the defendant's counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738) is deficient because it fails to analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal. These appellate issues include the validity of the appeal waiver with reference to the facts of the case and whether the defendant's sentence was excessive (see People v London, 198 A.D.3d 920; People v Gates, 198 A.D.3d 917; People v Rojas, 188 A.D.3d 726, 727; People v Lamery, 186 A.D.3d 1400, 1402; People v Randolph, 156 A.D.3d 818). Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel fulfilled his obligations under Anders v California, we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant (see People v Velez, 176 A.D.3d 1239, 1240; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 258).
CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, GENOVESI and DOWLING, JJ., concur.