People v. Lampkins, 21 N.Y.2d 138 (1967)
A defendant is entitled to a hearing on a writ of error coram nobis if they present evidence suggesting they were unconstitutionally deprived of their right to appeal, even if their attorney believed abandoning the appeal was strategically advantageous.
Summary
Bex Lampkins, convicted of second-degree murder, sought coram nobis relief, alleging he was improperly denied his right to appeal by his assigned counsel. His attorney had strategically decided not to pursue the appeal fearing a first-degree murder conviction in a retrial. The New York Court of Appeals held that Lampkins was entitled to a hearing to determine whether he consented to this strategy. The court emphasized that the choice to appeal ultimately belonged to the defendant, not the attorney, and that if Lampkins demonstrably did not consent to abandoning the appeal, his rights were effectively frustrated.
Facts
Lampkins was convicted of second-degree murder in 1950 and sentenced to 30 years to life. He had three assigned counsel. Lampkins claimed his attorney fraudulently allowed his appeal to be dismissed without his consent or knowledge of his appeal rights. The attorney believed that pursuing the appeal was not in Lampkins’s best interest because a retrial could result in a first-degree murder conviction. Lampkins wrote a letter to a judge expressing his desire to appeal and another to his attorney questioning why his appeal was being dismissed.
Procedural History
Lampkins applied for a writ of error coram nobis in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which was denied without a hearing. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the denial. Lampkins then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
- Whether Lampkins was entitled to a hearing on his coram nobis application to determine if he was unconstitutionally deprived of his right to appeal.
Holding
- Yes, because Lampkins presented sufficient evidence suggesting he did not consent to his attorney’s strategy of abandoning the appeal, thus raising a question of fact as to whether his right to appeal was unconstitutionally frustrated.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the attorney’s strategic reasoning for abandoning the appeal. However, the court emphasized that the ultimate decision to appeal rests with the defendant. The court cited Lampkins’ letters, particularly his letter to a judge expressing his desire to appeal and his attorney’s ambiguous response, as sufficient to raise a factual issue regarding his consent. The court distinguished between the attorney’s strategic advice and the defendant’s right to make the final decision. The court noted that Lampkins’ efforts to obtain his trial minutes after the appeal was dismissed further suggested he was unaware of or did not consent to the dismissal strategy. Referring to People v. Adams, the court stated that a defendant’s right to appeal is “effectively frustrated” if their appeal is dismissed without their knowledge. The court clarified that coram nobis is the appropriate vehicle for raising such claims, as a motion to reinstate the appeal in the Appellate Division is not appealable to the Court of Appeals. The court also addressed Lampkins’ claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, finding that the attorney’s strategic decisions, while potentially debatable, did not constitute representation “so patently lacking in competence or adequacy that it becomes the duty of the court to be aware of it and correct it,” quoting People v. Tomaselli.