Summary
This Appellate Division, Third Department decision reviews a criminal conviction following a guilty plea to grand larceny in the fourth degree under a plea agreement containing a waiver of indictment and right to appeal. Defense counsel moved to withdraw after filing an Anders brief, but the court found arguable merit regarding whether the waiver of indictment complied with statutory requirements. The court granted the motion to withdraw, appointed new counsel to brief the issue, and withheld its final decision pending further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the execution of the waiver of indictment complied with the requirements of CPL 195.20.
Holdings
- The court found that the issue is of arguable merit and therefore granted the appellant’s counsel’s application to withdraw and assigned new counsel.
Key quotations
“Specifically, we find an issue of arguable merit regarding whether the execution of the waiver of indictment complied with the requirements of CPL 195.20 (compare People v. Trapani, 232 AD3d 1052, 1053 [3d Dept 2024]; People v. Lunt, 232 AD3d 1054, 1055 [3d Dept 2024]; see generally People v. Camlin, 215 AD3d 1013, 1014 [3d Dept 2023]). Accordingly, we grant counsel's application for leave to withdraw and assign new counsel to address this issue and any others that the record may disclose.” (at 1)
Factual background
Eric Partak pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree, paid required restitution, and was sentenced to the agreed‑upon term. The plea agreement required a waiver of indictment, and the issue before this court is whether that waiver complied with CPL 195.20.
Procedural history
The defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny, satisfied a restitution condition, was sentenced to 1½–3 years, and waived his right to appeal. He now seeks to withdraw counsel, raising the issue of whether the waiver of indictment complied with CPL 195.20.