People v. McWilliams

308 A.D.2d 599, 764 N.Y.S.2d 882
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 29, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 599 (People v. McWilliams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. McWilliams, 308 A.D.2d 599, 764 N.Y.S.2d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered August 7, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]) in which he moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

Ordered that the motion is granted, and Joseph Arthur Hanshe, Esq., is relieved as the attorney for the defendant and is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that Steven Feldman, Esq., 300 Rabro Drive, Hauppauge, N.Y., 11788, 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 on motion 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.

Upon this Court’s independent review of the record, arguable issues exist which cannot be considered “wholly frivolous” (Anders v California, supra at 744). Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted (see id.; People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Sudbrink
18 A.D.3d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Pertillar
15 A.D.3d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
308 A.D.2d 599, 764 N.Y.S.2d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcwilliams-nyappdiv-2003.