- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- People v. Mejiachicas
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03457
Background
Defendant Jiuber A. Mejiachicas was convicted in County Court, Suffolk County (Anthony Senft, Jr., J.), upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree, and sentenced. On appeal, assigned counsel submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 US 738, moving for leave to withdraw and asserting that no nonfrivolous issues existed for appeal. The defendant also submitted a pro se supplemental brief.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw but assigned new counsel to prosecute the appeal, finding that nonfrivolous issues exist. While the Court found the Anders brief itself sufficient in form, its independent review of the record revealed at least one nonfrivolous issue: whether the duration of the orders of protection exceeded the statutory maximum, citing People v. Williams, 244 AD3d 1257, and People v. McBean, 192 AD3d 1706.
The Court directed new counsel to serve and file a brief within 90 days, with the respondent to respond within 30 days thereafter. The Court distinguished between a potential appellate argument that is “merely meritless or unlikely to prevail” and one that is truly “frivolous,” emphasizing that “appeals that present issues that may be arguable on their merits—even if weakly or marginally so—must be perfected to fulfill the defendant’s right to receive, and the attorney’s obligation to provide, zealous representation.”
Takeaways
This decision powerfully illustrates the Anders safeguard in action. Even when assigned counsel certifies that no nonfrivolous issues exist, the appellate court’s independent review may reveal arguable issues that counsel overlooked or undervalued. The order of protection duration issue identified here—whether it exceeded the statutory maximum under CPL 530.13(4)(A)—is a recurring issue in New York criminal appeals and one that assigned counsel should always check. The case also reinforces the critical distinction between meritless and frivolous arguments: an argument need not be strong to be nonfrivolous.
Why It Matters
This case is essential reading for assigned appellate counsel in criminal matters. It demonstrates that the Anders review is not a rubber stamp—courts take their independent review obligation seriously and will assign new counsel when arguable issues are identified. Defense attorneys filing Anders briefs should carefully examine orders of protection for compliance with statutory duration limits, which is a fertile source of nonfrivolous appellate issues. The decision also serves as a reminder that the threshold for a nonfrivolous issue is deliberately low, requiring only that the issue be “arguable on its merits” even if unlikely to succeed.