People v. Mejiachicas
This text of People v. Mejiachicas (People v. Mejiachicas) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Mejiachicas
2026 NY Slip Op 03455
June 3, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Jiuber A. Mejiachicas, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on June 3, 2026
2021-07595, (Ind. No. 294/20)
Betsy Barros, J.P.
Angela G. Iannacci
Donna-Marie E. Golia
Lisa S. Ottley, JJ.
Joseph A. Hanshe, Sayville, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Thomas C. Costello and Kim Marie Carson of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Anthony Senft, Jr., J.), rendered September 2, 2021, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.
ORDERED that the motion of Joseph A. Hanshe 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 Thomas J. Butler, P.O. Box 665, Melville, NY, 11746, 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 the date 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 prior decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 19, 2022, the appellant was granted a waiver of costs, fees, and expenses and the assignment of counsel, with the appeal to 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 US 738) consists of two separate and distinct steps" (People v Bolton, 216 AD3d 812, 813). First, the court evaluates 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 [*2]appeal, with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority'" (People v Murray, 169 AD3d 227, 232, quoting Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252, 258). "The second step is to determine whether counsel's assessment that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal is correct" (People v Bolton, 216 AD3d at 813). "In analyzing whether nonfrivolous appellate issues exist, it is essential to appreciate the distinction between a potential appellate argument that is merely meritless or unlikely to prevail and one that is frivolous" (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d at 258). "Appeals that present issues that may be arguable on their merits—even if weakly or marginally so—must be perfected to fulfill the defendant's right to receive, and the attorney's obligation to provide, zealous representation" (People v Murray, 169 AD3d at 231). If the court concludes that nonfrivolous issues could be raised on appeal, the court must assign new counsel to pursue the appeal on the defendant's behalf (see Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d at 258).
Here, while we are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by assigned counsel, upon this Court's independent review of the record, we conclude that nonfrivolous issues exist, including, but not necessarily limited to, whether the duration of the orders of protection exceeded the statutory maximum (see People v Williams, 244 AD3d 1257; People v McBean, 192 AD3d 1706).
BARROS, J.P., IANNACCI, GOLIA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
People v. Mejiachicas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mejiachicas-nyappdiv-2026.