The People, etc., respondent, v. Misha Louis, appellant. (2014)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The People, etc., respondent, v. Misha Louis, appellant.

2012–03401 (Ind.No. 1953 /11)

Decided: November 05, 2014

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. PETER B. SKELOS SHERI S. ROMAN JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

Harvey A. Herbert, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel; Robert Ho on the brief), for respondent. Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered March 28, 2012, convicting her of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon her 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 Harvey A. Herbert 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,

Submitted—October 3, 2014

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

ORDERED that Arza A. Feldman, Esq., 626 RXR Plaza, West Tower, 6th Floor, Uniondale, N.Y., 11556, is assigned as counsel to perfect 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 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 September 13, 2012, the appellant 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.

The brief submitted by assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v. California (386 U.S. 738), while it does recite the testimony elicited at a pretrial suppression hearing in painstaking detail, and while it also summarizes the plea proceeding, nonetheless fails to “highlight anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal” (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252, 255). A “ ‘lengthy, indiscriminate narrative of the facts' ” (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d at 257, quoting People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606, 611), without more, does essentially nothing to “draw the Court's attention to the relevant evidence” (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d at 258). “Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel fulfilled h[is] obligations under Anders v. California (386 U.S. 738 [1967] ), we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant” (People v. Greenhill, 114 AD3d 875, 876, citing People v. McNair, 110 AD3d 742, People v. Singleton, 101 AD3d 909, 910, and Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d at 258).

MASTRO, J.P., SKELOS, ROMAN and MALTESE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law