People v Cong (Chang)

[*1] People v Cong (Chang) 2020 NY Slip Op 50400(U) Decided on March 13, 2020 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 13, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., DAVID ELLIOT, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2017-1337 Q CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Chang Cong, Appellant.

Appellate Advocates (Anjali Biala of counsel), for appellant. Queens County District Attorney (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill and Jonathan K. Yi of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Eugene M. Guarino, J.), entered June 16, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted promoting prostitution in the fourth degree, and imposed sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), seeking leave to withdraw as counsel.

ORDERED that the appeal is held in abeyance, the application by assigned counsel for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted and new counsel is assigned pursuant to article 18-B of the County Law to prosecute the appeal;

Steven A. Feldman, Esq.

1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404

Manhasset, NY 11030.

Relieved counsel is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to the newly assigned counsel. New counsel is directed to serve and file a brief within 90 days after the date of this order and decision. The People may serve and file a respondent's brief within 21 days after the service [*2]upon them of the appellant's brief. Appellant's new counsel, if so advised, may serve and file a reply brief within seven days after service of the respondent's brief.

Assigned counsel submitted an Anders brief setting forth the conclusion that there exist no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on appeal (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]). Defendant was charged in a felony complaint with promoting prostitution in the third degree (Penal Law § 230.25 [1]), a class D felony. The complaint was then converted, pursuant to CPL 180.50 by means of a notation, to a misdemeanor information charging defendant with promoting prostitution in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 230.20 [1]), a class A misdemeanor, to which charge defendant ultimately pleaded guilty. A review of the record reveals at least one nonfrivolous issue, to wit, whether the notation was insufficient to satisfy the nonwaivable requirements of CPL 180.50 (3) (see People v Spooner, 22 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52664[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]; see also People v Dion, 93 NY2d 893 [1999]; People v Klein,42 Misc 3d 141[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50212[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014]; People v Grune, 175 Misc 2d 281 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 1997]; People v Jones, 151 Misc 2d 582 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1991]; People v Minor, 144 Misc 2d 846 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1989]).

We, therefore, hold the appeal in abeyance, grant assigned counsel's application to withdraw as counsel, and assign new counsel, pursuant to article 18-B of the County Law, to ascertain whether defendant desires to raise the issue set forth above, and to prosecute the appeal on defendant's behalf with respect to this issue or any other issue that can be identified.

WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk
Decision Date: March 13, 2020