¶1Motion by assigned counsel to be relieved and to have alternate counsel assigned on this appeal denied without prejudice. Appellant’s time to perfect this appeal enlarged to the September 1976 Term. Assigned counsel asks to be relieved, stating that his review of the trial minutes does not reveal a valid issue to be raised on this appeal. Appellant joins in his counsel’s application, and requests that a new attorney be assigned. The moving papers submitted here are insufficient to warrant the granting of the requested relief. The Supreme Court, in Anders v California (386 US 738), established the procedure to be followed in this type of situation. Upon finding his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of the record, counsel should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Such request should be accompanied by a brief reciting the underlying facts and highlighting anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The brief should be prepared in accordance with the applicable rules of this court, and placed on the Appeals Calendar within the time period prescribed for perfecting the appeal. Appellant should be furnished with a copy of the brief, and given an opportunity to *834raise any points he chooses. The court will then examine all of the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. If such a finding is made, the court will grant counsel’s request to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of conviction. But, if the court finds any legal points arguable on their merits, it will afford the appellant the assistance of new counsel to argue the appeal. In certain limited classes of cases (e.g., where the sentence imposed was excessive) the interests of justice may require an immediate disposition of the appeal by the court in order to avoid the delay the assignment of a new attorney would necessitate. Time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the September 1976 Term of this court. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.
52 A.D.2d 833
People v. Saunders
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 27, 1976
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1976-05-27
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1984
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“The constitutional requirement of substantial equality and fair process can only be attained where counsel acts in the role of an active advocate in behalf of his client, as opposed to that of amicus curiae _ His role as an advocate requires that he support his client’s appeal to the best of his ability. Of course, if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. That request must however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A copy of counsel’s brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses; the court — not counsel— then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. If it so finds it may grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal .... On the other hand, if it finds any of the legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including Laffosse v. Walters
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1976-05-27
View the full empirical analysis of this case →