From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 30, 1991
176 A.D.2d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

September 30, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.).


Ordered that the motion is granted, Christina D'Amato-Arvoy is relieved as attorney for the defendant and she is directed to turn over all papers in her possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that Stephanie Knowles, of 475 17th Street, Brooklyn, N Y 11215, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the People are directed to furnish a copy of the stenographic minutes to the new assigned counsel; and it is further,

Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the defendant within 90 days of the date of this decision and order and the People shall serve and file their brief within 120 days of the date of this decision and order; by prior decision and order of this court, the defendant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal on the original papers (including the typewritten stenographic minutes) and on the typewritten briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other.

Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v. California ( 386 U.S. 738) in which she seeks to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal. Annexed to the Anders brief is a copy of a letter from the defendant to her outlining an issue which he wanted to raise on appeal. Additionally, counsel in her brief relates the fact that the defendant seeks to raise another issue on appeal. Nevertheless, in the Anders brief counsel at some length rejected those potential issues as frivolous. As the Court of Appeals observed under similar circumstances in People v. Vasquez ( 70 N.Y.2d 1, 4), counsel thereby disparaged the claims her client wanted addressed and "for all practical purposes, precluded [her] client [if he was so advised] from presenting them effectively in a pro se brief". Accordingly, new counsel must be assigned and consideration of the appeal deferred until the filing of further briefs. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 30, 1991
176 A.D.2d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 30, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
574 N.Y.S.2d 598

Citing Cases

People v. Richards

In his Anders brief, however, assigned counsel discussed the defendant's points in detail and rejected them…

People v. Nash

In this brief, counsel states that the defendant asked him to raise certain specific issues on appeal.…