People v. Haynesworth

People v Haynesworth (2025 NY Slip Op 04019) People v Haynesworth 2025 NY Slip Op 04019 Decided on July 2, 2025 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 2, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P. LINDA CHRISTOPHER JANICE A. TAYLOR JAMES P. MCCORMACK, JJ. 2024-09518 ON MOTION (Ind. No. 71127/24) [*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent, v James A. Haynesworth, appellant. Martin Geoffrey Goldberg, Franklin Square, NY, for appellant. Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Meryl J. Berkowitz, J.), rendered September 5, 2024, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third 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 the motion of Martin Geoffrey Goldberg 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 Paul Skip Laisure, 1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 325, Garden City, NY 11530, is assigned as counsel to prosecute 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 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 of this Court dated October 28, 2024, 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]). In reviewing an attorney's motion to be relieved pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738), this Court must first "'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'" (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252, 255 [emphasis omitted], quoting Penson v Ohio, 488 US 75, 83). An adequate Anders brief "must, at a minimum, draw the Court's attention to the relevant evidence, with specific references to the record; identify and assess the efficacy of any [*2]significant objections, applications, or motions; and identify possible issues for appeal, with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority" (id. at 258). "[W]here counsel has failed in his or her role as advocate by filing a deficient brief, on this basis alone, new counsel will be assigned to represent the appellant on the appeal" (id.; see People v Telesco, 235 AD3d 910, 912). Here, the brief submitted by assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California is deficient "because it fails to analyze potential appellate issues with reference to legal authority or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal" (People v Telesco, 235 AD3d at 912; see People v Rodrigues, 229 AD3d 463, 464; People v Reyes-Fuentes, 228 AD3d 686, 688). With regard to those issues identified in the brief that could be raised on the defendant's behalf, the analysis lacks supporting legal authority (see People v Telesco, 235 AD3d at 912). Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel has fulfilled his obligations under Anders v California, we must assign new counsel to represent the defendant (see People v Ponce, 221 AD3d 914, 915; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d at 258). BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court