People v. Bachert, 69 N.Y.2d 593 (1987)
When a defendant claims ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the proper procedural vehicle for review is a writ of error coram nobis, brought in the intermediate appellate court where the alleged deficiency occurred, until the legislature enacts a specific statutory remedy.
Summary
Rickey Bachert was convicted of burglary, criminal trespass, and petit larceny. After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, Bachert collaterally attacked his conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise prosecutorial misconduct and challenge repugnant verdicts. The trial court denied the motion, citing a lack of jurisdiction under CPL 440.10. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that CPL 440.10 could incorporate ineffective appellate counsel claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that coram nobis in the appellate court is the appropriate remedy. The Court emphasized that CPL 440.10 is not designed for appellate counsel ineffectiveness claims and urged the legislature to create a comprehensive statutory remedy.
Facts
Rickey Bachert was convicted of burglary in the second degree, criminal trespass in the second degree, and petit larceny after a jury trial.
Bachert appealed the conviction, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
Leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied.
Bachert then moved to vacate the judgment in the trial court, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel due to counsel’s failure to raise issues of prosecutorial misconduct and challenge the verdicts as repugnant.
Procedural History
The trial court denied Bachert’s motion to vacate, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under CPL 440.10 to review claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
The Appellate Division reversed and remitted for further proceedings, concluding that CPL 440.10 (1)(h) could be broadly construed to incorporate ineffective appellate counsel claims.
The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether CPL 440.10 is the appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge a judgment of conviction based on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Holding
No, because CPL 440.10 does not encompass claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; the proper procedure is a common-law coram nobis proceeding brought in the appellate court where the alleged ineffective assistance occurred.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that CPL 440.10(1)(h) addresses whether the *judgment itself* was obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. Appellate courts do not render judgments of conviction, they only affect them.
The Court also found that a motion for reargument (CPL 470.50) is not an acceptable solution, as it is not appropriate for raising new questions. The Court noted that the time frame for making reargument motions would lead to disparate treatment and that reargument is not traditionally perceived as providing the fresh examination required for alleged deprivations of counsel.
The Court stated that the writ of error coram nobis is the best available remedy in the circumstances, citing its history and flexibility. The Court referenced prior expansions of the writ’s scope, noting it had “not hesitated to expand its scope when necessary to afford the defendant a remedy in those cases in which no other avenue of judicial relief appeared available.” People v. Hairston, 10 N.Y.2d 92, 93-94 (1961).
The Court held that coram nobis proceedings should be addressed in the court which rendered the order from which relief is sought. “Where, as here, it is the Appellate Division’s order that is questioned, the application should be to that court”. People ex rel. Douglas v. Vincent, 50 N.Y.2d 901, 905 (1980) (Meyer, J., dissenting).
The Court noted its “discomfiture” with the absence of a comprehensive statutory mechanism and invited the Legislature’s prompt attention to the problem.