People v. Thomas, 47 N.Y.2d 72 (1979)

The State may be estopped from asserting a statutory time limit to defeat a defendant’s motion for an extension of time to appeal a criminal conviction when the prosecutor’s inaction prejudiced the defendant’s ability to file a timely appeal.

Summary

James Thomas was convicted of possession of a forged instrument. After being incorrectly informed he had 30 days to appeal, Thomas sought to appeal pro se, mistakenly filing a motion with the wrong court. The clerk forwarded the motion to the correct court, which then requested information from the District Attorney regarding the appeal’s status. The District Attorney failed to respond, leading the court to believe an appeal was pending and grant Thomas poor person status. Only after the statutory time to appeal expired did the District Attorney reveal no notice of appeal had been filed. The Court of Appeals held the People were estopped from asserting the time bar due to the District Attorney’s prejudicial inaction.

Facts

James Thomas was convicted on April 18, 1975, and sentenced to a prison term. He was incorrectly advised that he had 30 days to appeal. Thomas informed his counsel of his desire to appeal. No notice of appeal was filed. Thomas, acting pro se, mailed a “Notice of Motion to Appeal in Forma Pauperis” to the Court of Appeals, which was then forwarded to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division sent two letters to the Orleans County District Attorney’s office requesting information on the status of the appeal, specifically the filing date of the notice of appeal. The District Attorney did not respond to either letter.

Procedural History

The Appellate Division, assuming a notice of appeal had been timely filed, granted Thomas’s application to proceed as a poor person. Eighteen months later, after Thomas filed a pro se motion for reversal, the District Attorney revealed that no notice of appeal had ever been filed. Thomas’s subsequent CPL 460.30 motion for an extension of time to appeal was denied by the Appellate Division as untimely. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s denial.

Issue(s)

Whether the People should be estopped from asserting the one-year limit of CPL 460.30 to defeat a defendant’s motion for an extension of time to appeal when the District Attorney failed to respond to inquiries from the Appellate Division regarding the appeal’s status, thereby prejudicing the defendant’s ability to file a timely appeal.

Holding

Yes, because the prosecutor’s omissions frustrated the defendant’s good faith exercise of his right to the remedy of CPL 460.30. The People are therefore estopped from invoking the bar of the one-year limit.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that CPL 460.30 provides a means for defendants who were not informed of their right to appeal, or whose failure to appeal was due to their attorney’s inaction, to seek an extension of time to appeal. While the statute imposes a one-year time limit for bringing such a motion, the Court held that the People could be estopped from asserting this limit under certain circumstances. The court emphasized the District Attorney’s unresponsiveness to the Appellate Division’s inquiries, noting the court routinely relied on the District Attorney as a source of information on pending criminal appeals. The court stated, “Not only was it practical for the court to seek data from the defendant’s adversary, but also eminently rational in view of the broader duty of the prosecutor to function in the interest of justice and fair play as a representative of the public interest.” By failing to respond, the District Attorney lulled the defendant and the Appellate Division into falsely accepting the appeal as properly brought. The court found all the elements of estoppel present: a duty to speak, violation of that duty by the prosecutor, and consequent detrimental reliance on the part of the defendant.