People v. Brown

140 A.D.2d 363, 527 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4644
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 2, 1988·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Assigned appellate counsel filed an Anders/Saunders brief (see, Anders v California, 386 US 738, supra; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833), claiming that the appeal was frivolous. Based upon our independent review of the record, appealable issues exist as to whether the display of a single photograph of the defendant to the complainant Theresa W. was impermissibly suggestive; if so, whether the photographic identification procedure tainted the complainant’s subsequent identification [364]*364at a pretrial lineup; and whether there was an independent basis for her in-court identification of the defendant. Since nonfrivolous issues can be identified in the record, we must assign new counsel and reconsider the appeal de novo (see, People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906; People v Vasquez, 70 NY2d 1, rearg denied 70 NY2d 748). Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Hooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Brown, 140 A.D.2d 363, 527 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

140 A.D.2d 363 (People v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Murray
2019 NY Slip Op 1101 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
In re Giovanni S.
89 A.D.3d 252 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Barger
72 A.D.3d 696 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Stokes
744 N.E.2d 1153 (New York Court of Appeals, 2001)