People v. Casiano, 492 N.E.2d 1224 (N.Y. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Casiano, 492 N.E.2d 1224 (N.Y. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 · …the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel, at p. 907 ✓
159 citation events (43 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Nieves (Raimundo) (nyappterm, 2019-06-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nieves (Raimundo)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2019 · confidence medium
A new assignment of counsel is required, as an appellate court's review of the record cannot "substitute for the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel" ( People v Casiano , 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]; see Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.] , 89 AD3d at 259).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kaid
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Defendant thereafter submitted a pro se supplemental brief advancing issues pertinent to this appeal, but "neither a review of the record by [this Court] nor a pro se brief can substitute for the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel” (People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]; see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 636-637 [2001]; People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606, 610-611 [1979]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lawrence (Shawn)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2016 · confidence medium
Furthermore, while the brief indicates that counsel invited comment from defendant, no letter to defendant is annexed to the brief, and counsel does not state how he has communicated or consulted with defendant ( see People v Casiano , 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Wells
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
It is even more difficult to project what use defense counsel would have made of the grand jury testimony if he had been permitted access to it (cf. People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Clermont
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In light of such deficiencies, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the suppression hearing from a review of the record, for, as it has been recognized in another context, review by this Court is no substitute for the single-minded advocacy of counsel (see People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Clermont
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In light of such deficiencies, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the suppression hearing from a review of the record, for, as it has been recognized in another context, review by this Court is no substitute for the single-minded advocacy of counsel (see People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hohn v. Guirand
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Since a review of the record by the Appellate Division cannot substitute for “the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel,” assignment of new counsel is warranted (People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]; see Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252, 259 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Giovanni S. (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Accordingly, it is inappropriate for this Court to analyze the merits of any particular appellate issue where the appellant has not received the benefit of a merits-based brief prepared by counsel (see Anders v California, 386 US at 743 ; Penson v Ohio, 488 US at 83-84 ; People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [where counsel submitted a brief pursuant to Anders without consulting with the defendant or “analyzing the issues presented by the record,” the Appellate Division erred in affirming the judgment based upon its determination that, although the record presented arguable issues, none warran…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nava v. Kinsler
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Since a review of the record by the Appellate Division cannot substitute for “the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel,” assignment of new counsel to prosecute the appeal is warranted (People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Barger
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Since a review of the record by the Appellate Division cannot substitute for “the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel,” a new assignment of counsel and reconsideration of the appeal is required (People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]; see People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]; People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]; People v Woodward, 145 AD2d 364 [1988]; People v Henry, 143 AD2d at 278 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jones
N.Y. App. Term. · 2008 · confidence medium
As an appellate court’s review of the record cannot “substitute for the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel” (People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]), a brief that fails to satisfy this standard deprives a defendant of the right to the effective assistance of appellate counsel (People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]; People v Johnson, 11 Misc 3d 136[A] , 2006 NY Slip Op 50494[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alexander Jenkins v. Philip Coombe, Jr.
2d Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Although Jenkins was able to raise two points in addition to those successfully advanced by his co-defendant’s counsel, it is quite possible that an attorney would have found other arguments or would have been more articulate in the presentation of the case on appeal. “[NJeither a review of the record by the Appellate Division nor a pro se brief can substitute for the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel.” People v. Casiano, 67 N.Y.2d 906, 907 , 492 N.E.2d 1224, 1225 , 501 N.Y.S.2d 808, 808 (1986) (citation omitted). *162 It is not necessary, however, to speculate on the type of a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bachert
NY · 1987 · confidence medium
The right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal is settled under both the Federal and State Constitutions (see, Evitts v Lucey, 469 US 387, 396 [nominal representation on appeal is like no representation and is constitutionally inadequate]; Anders v California, 386 US 738, 741 [an indigent person has the right to appellate representation equal to that of a nonindigent person]; Douglas v California, 372 US 353, 356-357 [the 14th Amendment requires States to provide indigent persons representation on their appeals as of right]; People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [failure to assign new cou…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Orve
N.Y. App. Div. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
Under the circumstances, the motion of the defendant’s assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted and new appellate counsel is assigned (see, People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 ; see, People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906 ; People v Liles, 153 AD2d 701 , supra).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Brown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
"In the fulfillment of that responsibility, counsel should promptly obtain any transcripts, and consult with the client , as well as with trial counsel" ( Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.] , 89 AD3d at 256 [emphasis added]; see People v Smith , 204 AD3d 838, 840 ; see also People v Casiano , 67 NY2d 906 ; People v Gonzalez , 47 NY2d 606 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Moore
N.Y. App. Div. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
Under the circumstances, the motion of the defendant’s assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted and new appellate counsel is assigned (see, People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 ; see also, People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906 ; People v Miller, 99 AD2d 1021 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Sito
N.Y. App. Div. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
Thus, assigned counsel’s brief does not comport with the principles set forth in Anders v California (supra) at which, inter alia, requires that assigned counsel conscientiously examine the record and, if such is the case, state that there are no nonfrivolous issue which can be advanced on appeal (see, Anders v California, supra, at 744745; see also, People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 ; People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606, 610-612 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Mason
N.Y. App. Div. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
Under the circumstances, the motion of the defendant’s assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted and new appellate counsel is assigned (see, People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 ; see also, People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906 ; People v Miller, 99 AD2d 1021 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Terry
N.Y. App. Div. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
Under the circumstances, the motion of the defendant’s assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted and new appellate counsel is assigned (see, People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 ; see also, People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906 ; People v Miller, 99 AD2d 1021 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Pablo Casiano
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 3, 1986.
492 N.E.2d 1224
1986 N.Y. LEXIS 18010
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Thomas H. Busch for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Barbara A. Sheehan and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 145 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order should be reversed and the matter remitted to[*907] the Appellate Division for a de nova consideration of defendant’s appeal.

Several nonfrivolous issues can be identified in the record of the trial court proceedings which resulted in defendant’s conviction. Nevertheless, his assigned appellate counsel filed an Anders/Saunders brief (see, Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833), claiming that the appeal was frivolous. He did so without (a) consulting with defendant or (b) analyzing the issues presented by the record. Although the Appellate Division, based on its review of defendant’s pro se brief, found that the record presented appealable issues, it found none warranted reversal, and affirmed the conviction without assigning new counsel to present the appeal.

Defendant did not waive his right to counsel and the Appellate Division’s failure to make a new assignment after discovering nonfrivolous issues were present deprived him of his right to the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. Our decision in People v Gonzalez (47 NY2d 606) is controlling on the issue and should have been followed (see also, Evitts v Lucey, 469 US 387; Anders v California, supra). Inexplicably, the District Attorney’s brief does not even cite, let alone distinguish, this recent decision or other pertinent decisions discussing this issue. As we have noted before, neither a review of the record by the Appellate Division nor a pro se brief can substitute for the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel (see, People v Gonzalez, supra, pp 610-611). A new assignment of counsel and reconsideration of the appeal is required.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.