People v. Stultz

222 A.D.3d 888

199 N.Y.S.3d 715 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Richard STULTZ, appellant.

2022–06280

Ind. No. 725/20

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—October 2, 2023

December 20, 2023

Stephen R. Mahler, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Hilda Mortensen of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.

HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J., ROBERT J. MILLER, LARA J. GENOVESI, LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Fran Ricigliano, J.), rendered June 13, 2022, convicting him criminal contempt in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with ( Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

ORDERED that the motion of Stephen R. Mahler for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant 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 Steven Feinman, One North Broadway, Suite 412, White Plains, NY, 10601, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal; and is further,

ORDERED that the respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the certified transcript of the proceedings to the appellant's 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 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 dated August 15, 2022, pursuant to CPL 380.55(2), this Court directed that the appeal be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings) and on the briefs of the parties. The parties are directed to upload, through the digital portal on this Court's website, digital copies of their respective briefs, with proof of service of one hard copy on each other (see 22 NYCRR 670.9 [a]).

" ‘To satisfy federal constitutional concerns, an appellate court faces two interrelated tasks as it rules on counsel's motion to withdraw. First, it must satisfy itself that the attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client's appeal. Second, it must determine whether counsel has correctly concluded that the appeal is frivolous’ " ( Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300, quoting McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 1, ...