People v. Rawlison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rawlison

58 A.D.3d 877, 870 N.Y.S.2d 922

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 27, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.3d 877 (People v. Rawlison) 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. Rawlison, 58 A.D.3d 877, 870 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

2] Appeal by thedefendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered May 15, 2008, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance on or near school grounds, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]) and moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

Ordered that the motion is granted, Richard L. Herzfeld, Esq., is relieved as counsel for the appellant, and is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that John Savoca, PO. Box 531, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., 10598, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered May 15, 2008; and it is further,

Ordered that the People are directed to furnish a copy of the certified transcript of the proceedings to the 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 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 as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings) and on the. 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, we conclude that nonfrivolous issues exist, including, but not limited to, the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea (see People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541 [2007]; People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242 [2005]; People v Kirksey, 43 AD3d 472 [2007]). Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 638 [2001]; People v Vasquez, 70 NY2d 1, 4 [1987]). Mastro, J.P, Fisher, Florio, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.

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

2] Appeal by thedefendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered May 15, 2008, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance on or near school grounds, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]) and moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

Ordered that the motion is granted, Richard L. Herzfeld, Esq., is relieved as counsel for the appellant, and is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that John Savoca, PO. Box 531, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., 10598, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered May 15, 2008; and it is further,

Ordered that the People are directed to furnish a copy of the certified transcript of the proceedings to the 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 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 as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings) and on the. 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, we conclude that nonfrivolous issues exist, including, but not limited to, the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea (see People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541 [2007]; People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242 [2005]; People v Kirksey, 43 AD3d 472 [2007]). Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 638 [2001]; People v Vasquez, 70 NY2d 1, 4 [1987]). Mastro, J.P, Fisher, Florio, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 877, 870 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rawlison-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack