People v Anonymous

Annotate this Case
People v Anonymous 2004 NY Slip Op 07937 [12 AD3d 171] November 4, 2004 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 19, 2005

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Anonymous, Appellant.

—[*1]

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., at suppression hearing; Brenda Soloff, J., at plea and sentence), rendered January 3, 2002, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of seven years to life, and appeal from judgment, same court (Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J., at plea; Brenda Soloff, J., at sentence), rendered January 3, 2002, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a concurrent term of 6 to 18 years, held in abeyance, and the People are directed to file a supplemental brief addressing defendant's substantive claims.

Contrary to the People's claim, the record does not provide a sufficient basis for a conclusion that defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, intelligent or voluntary (see People v Calvi, 89 NY2d 868, 871 [1996]). While defendant acknowledged and executed before the court a cooperation agreement containing a waiver of appeal, there was no mention of the waiver on the record. Thus, the court did not make a determination, "apparent on the face of the record," that defendant understood the terms of the waiver (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 280 [1992]).

Defendant raises three substantive issues, which were not addressed by the People. A [*2]review of the record shows that the arguments are nonfrivolous. Accordingly, the People are directed to submit a supplemental brief responding to defendant's substantive claims (see 22 NYCRR 600.16 [b]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.