People v Taylor

People v Taylor 2012 NY Slip Op 03672 Decided on May 8, 2012 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 May 8, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P.
ANITA R. FLORIO
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
2011-02473 ON MOTION
(Ind. No. 10-00492)

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

v

Mark Taylor, appellant.




David Gandin, Walden, N.Y., for appellant.
Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y.
(Lauren E. Grasso of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered February 3, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, 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 he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

ORDERED that David Gandin's motion 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 Gary Eisenberg, Esq., 10 Esquire Road, Suite 10, New City, N.Y., 10956, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

ORDERED that the People are 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 and the People shall serve and file their brief within 120 days of the date of this decision and order. By prior decision and order on motion of this Court, the defendant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on the original papers (including the 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 limited to, whether the defendant was sentenced as provided by law (see People v Samms, 95 NY2d 52). Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 638). [*2]
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., FLORIO, LEVENTHAL and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court