People v. Syville, 15 N.Y.3d 381 (2010)
A defendant whose direct appeal is lost due to the unconstitutionally deficient performance of counsel in failing to file a timely notice of appeal may seek relief via a writ of error coram nobis, even after the statutory CPL 460.30 deadline has passed, if the defendant could not reasonably have discovered the error within the one-year grace period.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether coram nobis is available to defendants who missed the CPL 460.30 deadline for filing a late notice of appeal because they were unaware their attorneys failed to file a notice of appeal as requested. The Court held that coram nobis is an appropriate remedy when an attorney fails to file a timely notice of appeal and the defendant could not reasonably have discovered this error within the statutory one-year grace period. This decision recognizes a due process exception to the strict CPL 460.30 time limit, ensuring defendants are not penalized for attorney errors they could not have reasonably detected.
Facts
In Syville, the defendant requested his attorney file a notice of appeal after a weapons conviction in November 2004. The attorney mistakenly believed it was premature to file the notice while other charges were pending. The attorney filed a late notice of appeal in March 2006. Syville discovered the error in July 2006, after the one-year CPL 460.30 grace period had passed. In Council, the defendant asked his attorney to file a notice of appeal after his February 2007 conviction and even paid the attorney $2,000 for this service. The attorney neglected to file the notice due to “law office failure.” Council discovered the error more than two years later.
Procedural History
In Syville, the Appellate Division denied Syville’s applications for relief under CPL 460.30 and coram nobis. A judge of the Court of Appeals granted Syville leave to appeal. In Council, the Appellate Division denied Council’s coram nobis application, even though the People did not oppose the request. A judge of the Court of Appeals granted Council leave to appeal. Both cases were consolidated for appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant, who discovers after the expiration of the CPL 460.30 grace period that a notice of appeal was not timely filed due to ineffective assistance of counsel, has recourse through a coram nobis application.
Holding
Yes, because the Due Process Clause requires that some avenue for relief be provided when the right to appeal has been lost due solely to the unconstitutionally deficient performance of counsel in failing to file a timely notice of appeal, and coram nobis is the appropriate procedural vehicle in New York.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court recognized that while states are not constitutionally required to grant criminal defendants an appeal as of right, when a state does provide such a right, it must ensure that the appeal is more than a meaningless ritual by affording a right to counsel. “[A] first appeal as of right…is not adjudicated in accord with due process of law if the appellant does not have the effective assistance of an attorney.” When defense counsel disregards a client’s timely request to file a notice of appeal, the attorney acts in a professionally unreasonable manner, and the defendant’s appellate rights are extinguished. The Court explained that CPL 460.30 eliminated the need for resentencing as a basis to extend the time for timely filing a notice of appeal but also imposed a one-year limit for the filing of a motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal. Coram nobis remains available to alleviate a constitutional wrong when a defendant has no other procedural recourse, especially when the alleged constitutional errors do not appear on the trial record, and the defendant could not have brought these errors to the attention of the trial courts. The Court held that, in these specific circumstances, the defendants could pursue their appeals, and remitted both cases to the Appellate Division for further proceedings.