PEOPLE v. VELASQUEZ (2025)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Meryl J. Berkowitz, J.), rendered May 10, 2024, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon 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 U.S. 738), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

ORDERED that the motion of Judah Maltz 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 Martin Goldberg, 672 Dogwood Avenue, # 183, Franklin Square, N.Y. 11010, 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 dated July 29, 2024, pursuant to CPL 380.55(2), this Court directed that the appeal 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]).

The brief submitted by the defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v. California (386 U.S. 738) is deficient because it fails to analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal (see Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252, 256).  Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel has fulfilled his obligations under Anders v. California, we must assign new counsel to represent the defendant (see People v. Spencer, 135 AD3d 971, 972;  Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d at 258).

DUFFY, J.P., MILLER, GOLIA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.