| People v Cardwell |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02411 [82 AD3d 1115] |
| March 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| The People of the State of New York,
Respondent, v George F. Cardwell, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Merri Turk
Lasky, and Sharon Y. Brodt of counsel; Andrew Dykens and Lorrie A. Zinno on the brief), for
respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chin-Brandt, J.), rendered May 29, 2009, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.
Ordered that the motion of Steven Banks 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 Lynn W.L. Fahey, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, N.Y., 10006, telephone number (212) 693-0085, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,
Ordered that the People are directed to furnish a copy of the certified transcript of the proceedings 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 of this Court, the defendant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal on the original papers (including the certified transcript of the proceedings) 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.
Upon this Court's independent review of the record, we conclude that nonfrivolous issues exist concerning, inter alia, the validity of the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal, as well [*2]as the validity of the defendant's plea of guilty. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.