People v. Andrews
17 N.E.3d 491
| NY | 2014Background
- New York appellate review is statutory (CPL art. 450); direct appeals generally require filing a notice within 30 days and CPL 460.30 allows a motion for permission to file a late notice if made with due diligence and within one year.
- People v Syville recognized a narrow coram nobis exception for defendants who could not reasonably discover, within CPL 460.30’s one‑year period, that counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal after a timely request.
- Patel: pleaded guilty with written/oral appeal waiver; moved under CPL 460.30 within one year; later sought coram nobis after Syville; Appellate Division granted relief.
- Andrews: pleaded guilty with waiver, accepted time‑served, released; later filed CPL 440 motion and then sought coram nobis alleging counsel failed to file a notice of appeal; Appellate Division denied coram nobis.
- Kruger: pleaded guilty, appealed to Appellate Division (denied on waiver grounds), did not file a timely criminal‑leave application (CLA); years later sought coram nobis to permit a late CLA alleging counsel promised but failed to file.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis is available when defendant previously used CPL 460.30 within the one‑year period (Patel) | Patel argued coram nobis remains available after invoking CPL 460.30 because counsel’s failure extinguished appellate rights | People: statutory CPL 460.30 is the proper exclusive remedial route when timely invoked | Coram nobis denied — using CPL 460.30 precludes later coram nobis relief in these circumstances |
| Whether Andrews’ coram nobis motion sufficiently alleged counsel’s ineffective failure to file a notice of appeal (Andrews) | Andrews claimed counsel failed to file despite his request and the omission could not be discovered within one year | People showed counsel discussed appeals, Andrews signed waiver, counsel’s statements undermined Andrews’ bare allegations | Coram nobis denied — Andrews’ allegations were perfunctory and contradicted by record |
| Whether Syville’s coram nobis rationale extends to seeking permission to file a late criminal‑leave application (CLA) to the Court of Appeals (Kruger) | Kruger argued counsel’s failure to file a requested CLA deprived him of appellate review and coram nobis relief | People: no federal constitutional right to counsel for discretionary CLA; failure to file a CLA does not implicate Sixth/Fourteenth Amendments | Coram nobis denied — Syville limited to appeals of right; no federal right to counsel for discretionary CLA so no automatic coram nobis relief |
| Whether state law should create broader coram nobis protection for CLAs (Rivera concurrence) | Rivera would allow coram nobis to permit late CLA where counsel promised to file and failed, to protect state review and federal exhaustion | People relied on federal precedent denying constitutional right to counsel on discretionary review | Concurrence disagrees; majority declines to expand coram nobis under state law and affirms denial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Syville, 15 N.Y.3d 391 (2010) (authorized narrow coram nobis relief where counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal and omission could not reasonably be discovered within CPL 460.30 one‑year period)
- People v Corso, 40 N.Y.2d 578 (1976) (CPL abrogated many common‑law coram nobis remedies; strict enforcement of CPL time limits)
- People v Thomas, 47 N.Y.2d 37 (1979) (time limits for appeal jurisdictional; limited coram nobis exception when defendant prevented from complying through no fault of own)
- People v Bachert, 69 N.Y.2d 593 (1987) (coram nobis remains available in limited, unanticipated functions after CPL enactment)
- People v Montgomery, 24 N.Y.2d 130 (1969) (early expansion of coram nobis to restart appeal periods where counsel failed to file notice)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (statutory right to appeal triggers guarantee of effective assistance of counsel)
- Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (attorney’s failure to file a requested notice of appeal can constitute professionally unreasonable performance)
- Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586 (1982) (no constitutional right to counsel for discretionary appeals to state highest court)
- Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974) (no entitlement to counsel for discretionary review to state supreme court)