22 N.Y.3d 922 (2013)
An indigent defendant is entitled to counsel on their first appeal as of right, even when the appeal’s dismissal is based on a procedural issue like failure to timely perfect, as this involves a discretionary determination on the merits.
Summary
Defendant Syrell’s appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Division for failure to timely perfect it. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Appellate Division erred in failing to assign counsel to represent Syrell before dismissing his first-tier appeal as of right. Even though the dismissal was based on a procedural rule (untimely perfection), the court considered it a discretionary determination on the merits of a threshold issue, requiring counsel for indigent defendants to ensure their rights are protected during the appellate process.
Facts
The defendant was convicted of a crime and sought to appeal. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal because the defendant failed to perfect the appeal in a timely manner, citing its rule mandating automatic dismissal for such failures.
Procedural History
The Appellate Division dismissed the defendant’s appeal. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division must assign counsel to an indigent defendant before dismissing their first-tier appeal as of right based on a failure to timely perfect the appeal.
Holding
Yes, because the dismissal, even for failure to timely perfect, constitutes a discretionary determination on the merits of a threshold issue, and the defendant is entitled to counsel to argue against the dismissal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the principles established in Evitts v. Lucey, Douglas v. California, Taveras v. Smith, and Halbert v. Michigan, which collectively affirm an indigent defendant’s right to counsel on a first appeal as of right. The court emphasized that where an appeal involves consideration of the merits and claims not yet presented by appellate counsel, the appellate court must assign counsel. The court reasoned that even though the Appellate Division has a rule mandating dismissal of untimely perfected appeals, the decision to dismiss still involved discretion. The court noted that the defendant was ill-equipped to represent himself in opposing the dismissal motion. Therefore, the Appellate Division’s failure to appoint counsel without considering indigency or the merits of the dismissal warranted reversal. The court instructed the Appellate Division to determine if the defendant was indigent and, if so, to assign counsel to litigate the dismissal motion, then determine if dismissal is appropriate. The court highlighted that under New York law, the dismissal of a first-tier appeal based on fugitive disentitlement is a threshold issue requiring counsel (citing Taveras v. Smith). The court distinguished the situation from an automatic bar to appeal, noting that discretionary elements remained (citing People v. Evans). The Court emphasizes the importance of ensuring indigent defendants have adequate legal representation during critical stages of the appellate process, particularly when discretionary decisions impacting their right to appeal are being made by the court.