People v. Poznanski
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The brief submitted by the appellant’s counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), was deficient because *702it failed to adequately 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]; People v Barger, 72 AD3d 696, 697 [2010]). Since 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…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- In re Giovanni S.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. SandersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. BargerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. FosterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- People v. OvalleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. AbdulAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. GonzalezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. SpencerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- People v. CampbellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.