People v. Jean

People v Jean (2014 NY Slip Op 05446)

People v Jean

2014 NY Slip Op 05446

Decided on July 23, 2014

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 July 23, 2014SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAppellate Division, Second Judicial Department
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
MARK C. DILLON
SHERI S. ROMAN
JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

2010-05039 ON MOTION
(Ind. No. 09-00310)

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

v

Gary Jean, appellant.

Edward Cigna, Stony Point, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered May 4, 2010, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738) in which he moves to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

ORDERED that the motion of Edward Cigna 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 Arlene Lewis, Esq., P. O. Box 219, Blauvelt, N.Y., 10913, 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, 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, whether the County Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to elicit certain evidence of prior bad acts and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 638; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252).

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

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court