Citation Numbers: 11 A.D.3d 347, 783 N.Y.S.2d 31, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12379
Filed Date: 10/21/2004
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
Although counsel’s letter to defendant properly explained the substance and expected consequences of counsel’s Saunders brief and advised him of his right to communicate with the court and set forth points which he thought could be raised on appeal, it was inadequate because it was written in English while the record reflects that defendant was aided by a Spanish interpreter at the plea proceeding, and there is nothing to indicate that defendant understood the letter or that anything was done to communicate its substance to him in Spanish (see United States v Leyba, 379 F3d 53 [2d Cir 2004]). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.