Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
People v. Singleton
People v. Singleton, 101 A.D.3d 909 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2012)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 2012-12-12
- Topic
- general
*910The brief submitted by the appellant’s counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]) was deficient because it failed to contain any statement of facts and failed to analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal (see People v Sanders, 91 AD3d 798, 799 [2012]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252, 256 [2011]). Inasmuch as the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel acted “as an active advocate on behalf of his . . . client” (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d at 256 [internal quotation marks omitted]), we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant (see People v Sanders, 91 AD3d at 799; People v Foster, 90 AD3d 1070, 1071 [2011]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d at 258). Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur;
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Singleton. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 81 opinions