Crimes - Right to Counsel - Motion of Assigned Counsel to be Relieved - Failure of Counsel to Communicate Substance of Letter Explaining Substance and Expected Consequence of Motion in Language Understood by Defendant

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julio Rodriguez III, J., at plea; Marsha Michael, J., at sentencing), rendered May 8, 2018, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years, held in abeyance, motion by assigned counsel to be relieved denied without prejudice to renewal, and counsel directed to communicate to defendant, in Spanish, the same information already provided to defendant in counsel's letter to defendant concerning the instant application for relief under People v Saunders (52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]).

Although counsel's letter to defendant properly explained the substance and expected consequences of counsel's Saunders brief and advised him of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, it was inadequate because it was written in English while the record reflects that defendant was aided by a Spanish interpreter at the plea and sentencing proceedings. There is nothing to indicate that defendant understood the letter or that anything was done to communicate its substance to him in Spanish (see People v Marrero, 11 AD3d 298 [1st Dept 2004]). Concur—Webber, J.P., Friedman, Kapnick, Higgitt, JJ.