By Michele Evans / NYweeklyRecord.com / Date: 11/5/2026
Category: Criminal Courts / Indigent Defense / Court Administration / Justice Reform
NEW YORK CITY, NY – A New York appeals court has rejected an assigned lawyer’s attempt to withdraw from a Queens criminal appeal, finding that the filing did not do the work required to protect the defendant’s rights.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled on November 4 that the brief filed for Luis Santana was deficient because it failed to analyze possible appellate issues with legal authority or identify facts in the record that might support an appeal.
Santana pleaded guilty in Queens Supreme Court in 2019 to second-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance. His assigned appellate lawyer filed what is known as an Anders brief, asserting that no nonfrivolous issues could be raised and asking to leave the case.
The court said a lawyer may not simply summarize the case and offer a bare conclusion that an appeal has no merit. Assigned counsel must conduct a diligent review, identify possible issues, point to the record, and explain why those issues do or do not provide a viable basis for appeal.
The ruling did not overturn Santana’s conviction. Instead, the panel granted the lawyer’s request to withdraw, appointed Twyla Carter of The Legal Aid Society as new counsel, ordered the prosecution to provide a certified transcript, and gave the new lawyer 90 days to file a brief.
That remedy matters because indigent defendants depend on appointed lawyers to test convictions and sentences. When the first appellate filing is too thin, the court cannot safely assume there is nothing worth reviewing.
New York rules require an Anders brief to state every point that may arguably support an appeal, with references to the record and citations to legal authority. The safeguard is meant to prevent a defendant’s appeal from ending simply because appointed counsel failed to examine or explain potential claims.
The decision also exposes the cost of delay. Santana’s judgment dates to June 2019. More than seven years later, the appellate process is still not complete, and new counsel must now begin the substantive review the first filing did not provide.
The public cannot tell from this ruling whether Santana ultimately has a winning issue. The court did not identify one and expressed no view on the merits. What it did say is that the prior brief was not reliable enough to close the door.
The next step is a new brief based on the transcript and full record. Prosecutors will then have 30 days to respond. The appellate court will decide the case only after the defendant receives the advocacy the law requires.
Leave a Reply