| People v Tissiera |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03026 [138 AD3d 1040] |
| April 20, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael J. Tissiera, Appellant. |
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County(Greller, J.), rendered July 10, 2014, convicting him of criminal contempt in the firstdegree, aggravated criminal contempt, and aggravated family offense (two counts), uponhis plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief inaccordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which she movesfor leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.
Ordered that the motion of Yasmin Daley Duncan for leave to withdraw as counsel isgranted, and she is directed to turn over all papers in her possession to the appellant'snew counsel assigned herein; and it is further,
Ordered that Bruce A. Petitio, Esq., 2 Austin Court, Poughkeepsie, NY, 12603, isassigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the certified transcript ofthe proceedings to the appellant's new assigned counsel; and it is further,
Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the appellant within90 days of this decision and order on motion, and the respondent shall serve and file itsbrief within 30 days after the brief on behalf of the appellant is served and filed. By priordecision and order on motion of this Court dated January 21, 2015, the appellant wasgranted leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on theoriginal papers, including a certified transcript of the proceedings, and on the briefs ofthe parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serveone copy on each other.
Upon this Court's independent review of the record, we conclude that there arenonfrivolous issues in this case, including, but not necessarily limited to, whether thepurported waiver of the defendant's right to appeal was valid (see generally People v Brown,122 AD3d 133, 141 [2014]; People v Nugent, 109 AD3d 625 [2013]; People v Gheradi, 68 AD3d892, 893 [2009]) and, if such waiver is found to be invalid, whether the sentenceimposed was excessive (see generally People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted (see People v Stokes, 95NY2d [*2]633, 638 [2001]; Matter of Giovanni S. [JasminA.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]). Dillon, J.P., Austin, Maltese and Barros, JJ.,concur.