People v Pertillar, Johnny
Motion No: 2002-11317
Slip Opinion No: 2006 NYSlipOp 70633(U)
Decided on June 20, 2006
Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports.


Supreme Court of the State of New York

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M35639

C/mv

STEPHEN G. CRANE, J.P.

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

PETER B. SKELOS

ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.

2002-11317

The People, etc., respondent,

v Johnny Pertillar, appellant.

(Ind. No. 02-00751)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

On the court's own motion, it is

ORDERED that Matthew B. Tully is relieved as the attorney for the defendant and is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

ORDERED that Arza Feldman, 300 Rabro Drive, Hauppauge, N.Y., 11788, (631) 272-5207, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

ORDERED that the People are directed to furnish a copy of the stenographic minutes to the new assigned counsel; and it is further,

ORDERED that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the defendant within 90 days of the date of this decision and order and the People shall serve and file their brief within 120 days of the date of this decision and order; by prior decision and order on motion of this court, the defendant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on the original papers (including the typewritten stenographic minutes) and on the typewritten briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other; and it is further,

ORDERED that under the particular circumstances of this case, assignment of new counsel is warranted in order that new counsel submit a brief raising the following issues, without limitation to counsel raising other nonfrivolous issues: whether the negotiated plea agreement was valid, whether the defendant should have been sentenced pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738), whether there was a violation of CPL 380.50, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive.

CRANE, J.P., LUCIANO, SKELOS and LIFSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court