- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- People v. Harris
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03455
Background
Defendant Cecil Harris was convicted in Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lisa Grey, J.), upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the third degree, and sentenced accordingly. On appeal, assigned counsel submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 US 738, and moved for leave to withdraw as counsel, representing that after a thorough review of the record, no nonfrivolous issues could be raised on appeal.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment and granted counsel’s application for leave to withdraw. The Court first evaluated the sufficiency of the Anders brief, finding it adequate. The Court then independently reviewed the record and concluded that there were no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. The withdrawal of counsel was granted consistent with Anders and Matter of Giovanni S. (Jasmin A.), 89 AD3d 252.
The Anders procedure requires assigned counsel on appeal to submit a brief that discusses relevant evidence with specific references to the record, identifies and assesses the efficacy of any significant objections or motions, and identifies possible issues for appeal with reference to the facts and relevant legal authority. Only after the court is independently satisfied that no nonfrivolous issues exist may counsel be relieved.
Takeaways
This decision illustrates the standard Anders procedure followed in New York appellate courts. When assigned counsel determines that an appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues, they must submit a brief demonstrating a thorough review rather than simply asserting there is nothing to argue. The appellate court then conducts its own independent review before affirming. The distinction between meritless arguments (which may still be nonfrivolous) and truly frivolous ones is critical—if arguable issues exist, even weak ones, the court must assign new counsel rather than grant the withdrawal application.
Why It Matters
For criminal defense attorneys, the Anders procedure is a significant ethical and professional obligation. Counsel must conduct a genuinely thorough review of the record before concluding that no nonfrivolous issues exist. The appellate court’s independent review serves as a safeguard to ensure that defendants’ appellate rights are not lost through inadequate advocacy. Compare this case with People v. Mejiachicas, decided the same day, where the court found nonfrivolous issues and assigned new counsel despite counsel’s Anders brief—demonstrating that the safeguard is not merely theoretical.