The People, etc., respondent, v. Dennys Fragoso, appellant. (2026)

Submitted—May 21, 2026

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

A/

ORDERED that Jillian S. Harrington, P.O. Box 131621, Staten Island, NY, 10313, 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 the new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the appellant within 90 days 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 June 23, 2025, 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 on 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] ).

In reviewing an attorney's motion to be relieved pursuant to Anders v. California (386 U.S. 738), this Court must first satisfy itself that the attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client's appeal (see People v. Burks, 247 AD3d 1053, 1054).  To be adequate, assigned counsel's brief must 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 appeal, with references to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority (see People v. Stanley, 243 AD3d 596, 597).  Counsel cannot merely recite the underlying facts and state a bare conclusion that, after reviewing the record and discussing the case with the client, it is the writer's opinion that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal (see People v. Burks, 247 AD3d at 1054).  Where counsel has failed in their role as advocate by filing a deficient brief, on this basis alone, new counsel will be assigned to represent the appellant on the appeal (see id.).

Here, the brief submitted by assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v. California is deficient because it fails to analyze potential appellate issues with reference to legal authority or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal (see People v. Haynesworth, 240 AD3d 512, 513;  People v. Reyes–Fuentes, 228 AD3d 686, 688).  With regard to those issues identified in the brief that could be raised on the defendant's behalf, the analysis lacks supporting legal authority (see People v. Haynesworth, 240 AD3d at 513).  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 appellant (see People v. Burks, 247 AD3d at 1054–1055).

DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court