Caseflicks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York • 1976

People v. Saunders

52 A.D.2d 833 | 384 N.Y.S.2d 161 | 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12652

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case requires assigned appellate counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous to file an Anders brief and permits withdrawal only after the court independently reviews the record.

Background

After a criminal conviction, Saunders appealed with assigned counsel. Counsel reviewed the trial minutes and concluded that he could find no valid issue for appeal. He therefore moved to withdraw and asked the Appellate Division to assign substitute counsel. Saunders joined that request and separately asked for a new attorney.

The motion papers did not include a brief identifying the facts of the case or any portions of the record that might arguably support an appeal. The Appellate Division denied the request without prejudice and extended Saunders's time to perfect the appeal to the September 1976 Term.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether assigned appellate counsel may withdraw and obtain substitute counsel merely by stating that review of the trial minutes revealed no valid appellate issue.

Holding

No. The application was insufficient because counsel had not followed the procedure required by Anders v. California for an appeal believed to be wholly frivolous.

Reasoning

Anders requires appointed counsel who, after conscientiously examining the record, concludes that an appeal is wholly frivolous to advise the court of that conclusion and seek leave to withdraw. But counsel may not simply announce that no issue exists; the request must be supported by an appellate brief.

The brief must recite the underlying facts and identify anything in the record that could arguably support the appeal. It must comply with the court's rules, be placed on the Appeals Calendar within the time for perfecting the appeal, and be furnished to the appellant so that the appellant may raise additional points.

Only after receiving that submission and any response from the appellant may the court independently examine the entire proceeding to decide whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. If it is, the court may allow counsel to withdraw and affirm the conviction. If any legal issue is arguable on its merits, the appellant must receive new counsel to argue the appeal.

Issue #2

Whether Saunders should receive additional time to perfect his appeal after denial of the withdrawal-and-substitution motion.

Holding

Yes. The court enlarged the time to perfect the appeal to the September 1976 Term.

Reasoning

Because the request to withdraw was denied without prejudice, counsel could pursue the Anders procedure while preserving Saunders's appeal. Extending the perfection deadline gave counsel time to prepare the required brief and place the matter on the court's calendar.

The court also noted that, in limited circumstances—such as an appeal presenting only an excessive-sentence claim—the interests of justice may justify immediate appellate disposition rather than delaying the matter for assignment of new counsel. The court did not find or apply that exception here.