People v. Brookings
Docket 2023-01178
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02413
- Docket
- 2023-01178
Appeal from a judgment of conviction (second-degree criminal contempt) entered after a guilty plea and sentence in Supreme Court, Kings County.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant's conviction for second-degree criminal contempt following his guilty plea and sentence. The defendant appealed, and his assigned counsel submitted an Anders brief seeking permission to withdraw for lack of nonfrivolous issues. After conducting an independent review of the record, the court agreed there were no meritorious appellate issues and granted counsel's motion to withdraw, affirming the judgment of conviction.
Issues Decided
- Whether there are any nonfrivolous appellate issues to be raised from the conviction and sentence entered after the defendant's guilty plea.
- Whether appointed counsel may be relieved under Anders v. California when no nonfrivolous issues exist.
Court's Reasoning
Counsel submitted an Anders brief asserting there were no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. The court independently reviewed the record and agreed that no meritorious issues could be raised challenging the plea, conviction, or sentence. Because the threshold for permitting counsel to withdraw under Anders was met, the court granted withdrawal and affirmed the judgment.
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738
- Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.]89 A.D.3d 252
Parties
- Appellant
- Denard Brookings
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.
- Judge
- Cheryl E. Chambers
- Judge
- Janice A. Taylor
- Judge
- Phillip Hom
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-22
- Judgment of conviction date
- 2023-01-12
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider seeking leave to appeal
If the defendant wishes to continue challenging the conviction, he should consult counsel about applying for leave to the New York Court of Appeals; such review is discretionary and time-limited.
- 2
Consult new counsel
Because appellate counsel was permitted to withdraw, the defendant should consult private counsel or request new appointed counsel if pursuing further review or postconviction relief.
- 3
Explore postconviction options
If there are collateral grounds (for example, ineffective assistance or constitutional claims), discuss the possibility of filing a postconviction or habeas petition with counsel.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence and allowed the defense attorney to withdraw because there were no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The defendant, Denard Brookings, is affected because his conviction and sentence were upheld; his appellate counsel was allowed to withdraw.
- What does 'Anders' withdrawal mean?
- It means appointed counsel filed a brief saying there are no meritorious issues to appeal, and the court independently reviewed the record and agreed, permitting counsel to stop representing the defendant on appeal.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Possibly, the defendant may seek leave to appeal to a higher court (such as the New York Court of Appeals), but this decision affirms the Appellate Division's ruling and further review is discretionary.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Brookings - 2026 NY Slip Op 02413 People v Brookings 2026 NY Slip Op 02413 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Denard Brookings, appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2023-01178, (Ind. No. 70458/21) Hector D. Lasalle, P.J. Cheryl E. Chambers Janice A. Taylor Phillip Hom, JJ. Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Steven C. Kuza of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel; Robert Ho on the brief), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Abena Darkeh, J.), rendered January 12, 2023, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted ( see id. ; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.] , 89 AD3d 252). LASALLE, P.J., CHAMBERS, TAYLOR and HOM, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph