Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Stephen M. Behar, J.), rendered July 16, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the second degree.

Appeal held in abeyance, application by assigned counsel for leave to withdraw as counsel granted, and new counsel assigned pursuant to article 18-b of the County Law to prosecute the appeal. New counsel is directed to file a brief within 90 days after the date of the order entered hereon and the People shall serve and file their brief within two weeks thereafter. Relieved counsel is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to the newly assigned counsel.

Assigned counsel has submitted an Anders brief that does not reflect that he determined the appeal to be frivolous after "a conscientious review of the record" (People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 636 [2001]). In the brief, he erroneously treats the appeal as being from an amended "judgment of conviction . . . convicting [defendant] after entry of a plea of guilty to violation of probation," rather than from an original judgment of conviction of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50 [3]).

Furthermore, at minimum, an Anders brief must refer[ ] to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal" (Anders v California, 386 US 738, 744 [1967]) via " a statement of the factual and legal issues relevant to the conviction and sentence sufficient to enable the court to evaluate and correctly decide the appeal'" (People v Bing, 144 AD2d 249, 249 [1988], quoting People v Miller, 99 AD2d 1021, 1021 [1984]). As an appellate court's review of the record cannot "substitute for the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel" (People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]), a brief that fails to satisfy that standard deprives a defendant of the right to the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [*2][2001], supra; People v Johnson, 11 Misc 3d 136[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50494[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]).

The brief here does not satisfy the standard because it does not address the adequacy of the plea allocution. Its legal analysis consists essentially of the following conclusory statements:

"In the present case, appellant entered a voluntary plea of guilty to violation of probation. * * *
* * *
. . . [A]ppellant has completed serving his sentence. Consequently, our office has concluded that there are no viable, non-frivolous issues that could be raised on this appeal. * * * "
Accordingly, appellate counsel's application to be relieved of his representation must be granted and new counsel assigned to prosecute the appeal.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 07, 2009