People v. Brisee (Steven)

People v Brisee (2020 NY Slip Op 51214(U)) [*1] People v Brisee (Steven) 2020 NY Slip Op 51214(U) [69 Misc 3d 132(A)] Decided on October 8, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 8, 2020 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT: : BRUCE E. TOLBERT, J.P., JERRY GARGUILO, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ 2018-1832 W CR The People of the State of New York, Respondent, against Steven M. Brisee, Appellant. John P. Savoca, for appellant. Westchester County District Attorney, for respondent (no brief filed). Appeal from a judgment of conviction of the Justice Court of the Town of Harrison, Westchester County (Daniel D. Angiolillo, J.), rendered August 7, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal trespass in the second 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. Feldman and Feldman 1129 Northern Boulevard 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 [*2]of this order and decision. The People may serve and file a respondent's brief within 21 days after the service 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]). A review of the record, however, reveals at least two intertwined nonfrivolous issues, namely, "whether the purported waiver of the defendant's right to appeal was valid and, if such waiver is found to be invalid, whether the sentence imposed was excessive" (People v Tissiera, 138 AD3d 1040, 1040 [2016] [citations omitted]). We, therefore, hold the appeal in abeyance, grant assigned counsel's application to withdraw as counsel and assign new counsel 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. TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: October 8, 2020