People v. Burt

2020 NY Slip Op 4208, 125 N.Y.S.3d 902, 185 A.D.3d 1301

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: July 23, 2020
• Docket: 110882
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Burt (2020 NY Slip Op 04208)

People v Burt

2020 NY Slip Op 04208

Decided on July 23, 2020

Appellate Division, Third Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: July 23, 2020

110882

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Robert Burt, Appellant.

Calendar Date: June 26, 2020
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Mulvey, Devine, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ.

G. Scott Walling, Slingerlands, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Sypniewski, J.), rendered August 10, 2018, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and was required to waive the right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant to 3½ years in prison, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record and counsel's brief, we disagree. We find that there is at least one issue of arguable merit with respect to the validity of defendant's appeal waiver that may potentially impact other issues that may be raised, such as the severity of the sentence (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 565-566 [2019]; People v Barrales, 179 AD3d 1313, 1314-1315 [2020]). Accordingly, without passing judgment on the ultimate merit of this issue, we grant counsel's application for leave to withdraw and assign new counsel to address this issue and any others that the record may disclose (see People v Beaty, 22 NY3d 490, 492-493 [2014]; People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 638-639 [2001]; see generally People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Egan Jr., J.P., Mulvey, Devine, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.