Submitted—September 21, 2022
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
ORDERED that Judah Maltz, 125–10 Queens Blvd., Suite 12, Kew Gardens, N.Y. 11415, 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 appellants 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 order dated July 29, 2020, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted an application pursuant to CPL 380.55 for poor person relief. By prior decision and order on motion dated August 28, 2020, this Court directed that the appeal be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the parties. The parties are directed to upload, through the digital portal on this Courts 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 attorneys 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 clients appeal’ ” (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252, 255, quoting Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83). “The filing of a sufficient Anders brief is essential to ensuring that an indigent partys rights are protected” (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d at 256). “[W]here counsel has failed in his or her role as advocate by filing a deficient brief, on this basis alone, new counsel will be assigned to represent the appellant on the appeal” (id. at 258; see People v. Murray, 169 AD3d 227, 232).
Here, the brief submitted by assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v. California is deficient because it fails to analyze potential legal issues with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority. The one-paragraph analysis of the case at hand does little more than conclusorily assert the opinion of assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal. Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel fulfilled his obligations under Anders v. California, we must assign new counsel to represent the defendant (see People v. Chicas, 203 AD3d 1064, 1066; People v. Giglio, 202 AD3d 820, 821; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d at 256).
DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, FORD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court