The People v. Mario Arjune
.115
| NY | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Arjune, a lawful permanent resident with limited literacy and cognitive impairments, was convicted of weapon possession and tampering after a jury acquittal on more serious charges and sentenced to 1–3 years; counsel filed a notice of appeal the day after sentencing.
- A standard appellate-rights form was handed at sentencing; Arjune later said he did not recall receiving or understanding it and did not retain appellate counsel or apply for poor person relief.
- About four years after the notice was filed, the People moved to dismiss the appeal as abandoned; neither Arjune nor trial counsel responded and the Appellate Division dismissed the appeal.
- Years later Arjune faced immigration consequences; appellate counsel sought reinstatement and then filed a coram nobis petition claiming ineffective assistance for failing to advise on poor person relief and for failing to oppose the dismissal; the Appellate Division denied relief.
- The Court considered whether Syville’s narrow coram nobis rule (allowing relief when counsel fails to file an appeal after a timely request) should be expanded to cover retained counsel who filed a notice but allegedly failed to advise on poor person relief or to respond to a dismissal motion years later.
Issues
| Issue | Arjune's Argument | Trial Counsel / People Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis is available where retained counsel filed a timely notice of appeal but allegedly failed to advise the defendant about poor person relief | Counsel failed to tell Arjune about poor person relief or assist in perfecting the appeal given his literacy/cognitive limits, so coram nobis is warranted | Written notice at sentencing and counsel’s filing of the notice of appeal satisfy obligations; defendant failed to prove ineffective assistance or due diligence | Denied — coram nobis not available; defendant didn’t meet burden to show counsel ineffective or that omission couldn’t be discovered within CPL 460.30 period |
| Whether coram nobis applies where counsel filed a notice but took no action years later to oppose People’s motion to dismiss | Counsel’s inaction deprived Arjune of appellate rights and counsel had an ongoing duty to protect appeal | No authority to impose an open-ended constitutional duty on trial counsel after filing notice; must meet Syville standards | Denied — no expansion of Syville to impose indefinite post-notice duty on retained trial counsel |
| Standard/burden for proving entitlement to coram nobis when appellate rights lost due to counsel’s conduct | Lower burden where defendant is illiterate/cognitively impaired and received minimal postconviction assistance | Defendant bears heavy burden to prove ineffective assistance and due diligence; unsupported affidavits insufficient | Held that defendant bore the burden and failed to prove ineffective assistance or due diligence; unsupported, hearsay or non‑first‑hand affidavits insufficient |
| Role of court-issued written notice in displacing counsel’s duty to consult about appeal | The written form was inadequate for an illiterate/cognitively impaired defendant; counsel still had duty to consult | Prior cases hold similar written notices can satisfy informational obligations; states are not required to appoint counsel for poor person applications | Held that written notice may satisfy obligations in many cases; here defendant failed to show the notice or that he couldn’t reasonably discover omission |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Syville, 15 N.Y.3d 391 (N.Y. 2010) (narrow coram nobis exception when counsel disregards timely request to file notice of appeal)
- Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (counsel must consult about appeal when a rational defendant would want one; no per se rule)
- People v. Perez, 23 N.Y.3d 89 (N.Y. 2014) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel for poor person application where adequate written notice is provided)
- People v. West, 100 N.Y.2d 23 (N.Y. 2003) (written appellate notices can satisfy informational requirements; appointment of counsel for poor person relief not constitutionally required)
- People v. Andrews, 23 N.Y.3d 605 (N.Y. 2014) (Syville is narrow; defendant must demonstrate appellate rights were lost due to ineffective assistance)
- People v. Rosario, 26 N.Y.3d 597 (N.Y. 2015) (defendant seeking relief beyond CPL 460.30 must show due diligence and more than unsupported affidavits)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (prevailing professional norms measure reasonableness of counsel)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1985) (right to counsel on first-tier appeal and effective assistance protects meaningful appellate review)
- People v. Brun, 15 N.Y.3d 875 (N.Y. 2010) (trial counsel’s violation of Appellate Division rule denying representation on appeal can warrant coram nobis)