People v. Lynn, 28 N.Y.2d 196 (1971)

A defendant who pleads guilty is not automatically entitled to a hearing to determine if they were informed of their right to appeal unless they can show they disputed the validity of the judgment during the appeal period and had a genuine appealable issue.

Summary

Lynn pleaded guilty to manslaughter and later sought resentencing to pursue an appeal, claiming he wasn’t informed of his appeal rights. The court held that defendants who plead guilty have a higher burden to demonstrate entitlement to a hearing on their right to appeal than those convicted after trial. Specifically, they must show they disputed the conviction’s validity during the appeal period and had a genuine appealable issue. Lynn failed to meet this burden because his attorney’s affidavit was equivocal, and he didn’t demonstrate a genuine appealable issue related to the excessiveness of his sentence.

Facts

In June 1962, the defendant, Lynn, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree, satisfying an indictment for second-degree murder. He was sentenced as a second-felony offender to 20 to 25 years imprisonment. Lynn did not appeal this conviction. Nine years later, in August 1971, Lynn initiated a coram nobis proceeding, seeking resentencing to allow him to take an appeal, claiming he was not advised of his right to appeal and that his sentence exceeded his expectations.

Procedural History

The County Court denied Lynn’s motion without a hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial without issuing an opinion. The case then came before the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a defendant who pleaded guilty is entitled to a hearing on a claim that they were not advised of their right to appeal, absent a showing that the validity of the judgment was disputed during the appeal period and there was a genuine appealable issue.

Holding

No, because a defendant who pleads guilty must show that during the time allowed for taking an appeal, the defendant disputed the validity of the judgment of conviction, and had a genuine appealable issue which, but for ignorance of or improper advice as to their rights, they might have raised on appeal.

Court’s Reasoning

The court distinguished between defendants convicted after trial and those who pleaded guilty. While the right to appeal is fundamental, a guilty plea waives certain rights and implies a decision to forego appellate review. The court reasoned that because of this waiver, a defendant who pleads guilty must demonstrate a genuine appealable issue and that the validity of the judgment was disputed during the appeal period to warrant a hearing on the failure to advise of appeal rights.

The Court stated, “during the time allowed for taking an appeal, the defendant disputed the validity of the judgment of conviction and that he had a genuine appealable issue which, but for ignorance of or improper advice as to his rights, he might have raised on appeal.” The court found that Lynn’s claim of an excessive sentence was not credible, particularly since he could have received a longer sentence. Furthermore, his former attorney’s affidavit was equivocal, and Lynn had previously brought post-conviction proceedings on other grounds, undermining his current claim.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeals held that Lynn did not meet the necessary conditions for a hearing, as his claim was weak, and he failed to demonstrate a genuine appealable issue that he would have raised had he been properly advised of his appellate rights. Therefore, the Appellate Division’s order was affirmed.