People v. Barksdale ( 2023 )

People v Barksdale (2023 NY Slip Op 04132)

People v Barksdale

2023 NY Slip Op 04132

Decided on August 2, 2023

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on August 2, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
PAUL WOOTEN
WILLIAM G. FORD
BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.

2022-02548
(Ind. No. 327/21)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Robert L. Barksdale, appellant.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (David P. Greenberg of counsel; Russ Altman-Merino on the brief), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Mariana Zelig of counsel; Lorri A. Zinno on the brief), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gary Miret, J.), rendered March 24, 2022, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. The Supreme Court erred in sentencing the defendant prior to the preparation of a presentence investigation report (see CPL 390.20[1]), however, since the defendant has completed his sentence and the remedy would be vacatur of the sentence and remittal for re-sentencing, this issue is academic (see People v Baldwin, 39 NY3d 1097; People v Shearer, 213 AD3d 699, 700-701). Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, FORD and WARHIT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court