PEOPLE v. SALGADO

Reset A A Font size: Print

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Carlos SALGADO, appellant.

Decided: February 20, 2013

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SANDRA L. SGROI, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ. John R. Lewis, Sleepy Hollow, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered August 3, 2011, convicting him of attempted 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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

ORDERED that the motion of John R. Lewis for leave to withdraw as counsel 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 Michael G. Paul, Esq., 49 Maple Avenue, New City, N.Y., 10956, 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 March 14, 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.

Upon this Court's independent review of the record, we conclude that nonfrivolous issues exist, including, but not necessarily limited to, the validity of the appellant's waiver of his right to appeal and, if such waiver is found to be invalid, whether the sentence imposed was excessive. Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted (see People v. Stokes, 95 N.Y.2d 633, 638, 722 N.Y.S.2d 217, 744 N.E.2d 1153; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A. ], 89 A.D.3d 252, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676).

Copied to clipboard