.J.
··. ~ . ' ~ : . Chapter .35 ..· l . •'
:1 .! New York''~; :.. ·· .·. § 35:.1 s~ary ~rP.9st~~~~-~~o!l :r:~me~~~ ~. ;N~~ t~i-~, .. § 35:2 Motion to vacate Judgment tinder New Yo~k Criminal
• . ·. • • • ; .•• Proced:u~~ L~:w,.§ 440.1~ . .: : , .1 ;~:. ~·, 1 § 35:3 -Text of'§'440.10-Effective until September.30,.
'. 2012. . . , I . : ., .. : : .~ .'.T,• . :r, 1 .i'. .: § 35:4 - -Effective OctQl>~~.1,,;2Ql~ , . :. , . . , . , _ § 35:5 --,-Independent ,civil ,a.<¢j.<>.n .. ; .. ·;, . ; ,~: ... ' § 35:6 ..;_Custody.requirement ~"i. '··' ... · . ~ "'! , .. > '; § 35:7 -Statute of limitations ·· · . ·.. .r • · § 35:8 -Right to·counsel · ·· .:! t- . .. ·· · § 35:9 -Grounds for relief § 35:10 - -Newly discovered evidence :_·, ·'.. § 35:11 -Filing § 35:12r ·-Barred claims §'.35:13 .. -Denial1of'relief.. · · .. ·'· • ,. ... 5 • ~.) ,; j 1 11 §i35:14 A_· · ' al . ·. , · .. · · : : · • . , -:-- ppe ~, i • , '. i ·I . . · ' ! . '; " • . ; §:35:1.5, --,-Text!of,§ 44.0.80 ; ; ' I;');>. ll:,:• '.ll I ; IJ;(i, £!,, •. : ! §'35:1~ -Jurisdiction-Case law § 35:17 -Hearing~Case·law - ,
§ ~5:18 <"·~Relief.gr~~4~C~@~J~~ , ,. ,, . , .· ·:.~ ... :·· q .- §"35:19 · -Denial.of'rerlef~Case'law· · · .... · ·J. .,. • ·~· · .. · ·
§ 35:20 -Guilty pleas-Case'law(~U·. ,·f-1 h ,;· ,, .... ~. · <;. .~. :'t l § S5:2L. ~Ineffective as&istance· of coimi;eb;--Case .Jaw ;i ·
§ 35:22 · --Newly;discovered evidence--Oase law~ .. · · t · 1 • I )', § 35:23 ·· · Motion: ·tQ set aside: sentence under New; York. ,, : " ... 1 . : ~ • , • I · C~al ~ocedll:1"e L~w § 44a20·. · ,·, · ·: § 35:24 ·--:..Filmg . · , · · · . · : § 35:25· · _::Grounds for'relief · · I .· .. .. § 35:26 -Denial of claims § 35:27 -Right to counsel
·§ 35:~8 ~Appeals .;
§ 35:29 ..--Text ·. ·' ) '.' •l' I,. § 35:80 -Case law § 35:31 Writ of habeas corpus under.,New York Oivil Practic~ Law and :a,ules §§ 7001 to 7012 · -· · · , § 35:32 -Use to correctjurisc.llctiOnaI·errors ·'· .·· ·• ·· .. • .. § 85:33 ~..,...Current restrictions>-on use to review· convictions or.· sentences
251 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF
§ 35:34 -Case law § 35:35 -Current use where validity of conviction or sentence not an issue and petitioner is entitled to immediate release § 35:36 - -Unlawful actions of parole or prison officials § 35:37 Judicial review of the actions of parole and prison officials under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Article 78 § 35:38 -Case law . § 35:39 . Writ of error· coram nobis~Ci:lrrent availability in appellate court · · § 35:40 - -C.laims of in~ffective assistance of appellate. counsel-Case law · · · · · § 35:41 Postconviction DNA testing statute under New York Criminal Procedure Law:§ 440.30(1-a) - § 35:42 Postconviction DNA testing statute . . § 35:43 Postconviction DNA testing statute under New York Criminal Procedure Law§ 440.30(1~a)-Case law § 35:44 Erroneous Convictions Act under New York Court of Claims Act § 8-b § 35:45 __:.Case law
KeyCite®: Cases and other legal materials listed in KeyCi~ Scope can he researched through the KeyCite service on Westlaw®. Use KeyCite to check citations for form, parallel references, prior and later hist9ry,' and comprehen;,. sive citator information, including citations to 'other- decisions and secondary materials. ·, i . ..: · . . .
§ 35:1 Summary of postcon~tj~n r~n;i~dies .ill.New York • • • • I • ~ Principal postconviction remedy: -: · The remedy authorized by N.Y. Crim. Proc. ·Law §-440.10 .. This remedy is applied for in the- convicting court. The remedy is an independent civil action, nQt a postsentencing phase .of the origi nal criminal case. The remedy is authorized by a ,statute. There is no custody requirement applicable to the remedy. Newly discovered evidence of innocence is a grotJ.nd for relief under. the remedy. Right to counsel: Although there is no statutory right to counsel in § 440.10 proceedings, a right to counsel in these proceedings does exist under case law. Statute of limitations: None. · Secondary postconviction remedies: Motion to set aside sentence,. under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.20 252 NEwYoRK § 35:1 ·.Habeas corpus Judicial review of the actions of parole and prison officials, under Article 78, .N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law & Rules Writ of error coram nobis (available only in an appellate court a;nd only, to r~ise .claims of ineffective assistanc::e• 9f appellate counsel) . ; ...... : . Other remedies:. . . . New Yor~ has a pos~onvictfon DNA testing statute, enacted in 1994...... ·. . . .: : ' ," ~ · ··New York has an erroneous convictions act, originally enacted in 194~, and entirely revised in 1984. · · Helpful readings: , . . . : (1). rjote; A Uniform, Approach to. New ·York ·state Liability for Wrongful Iriiprisonmerit: A Statutory· Model~ 49 'Alb: L. ~ev. 201 (1984) . . , . .(2). Bep11an .a~d Fast~an, Newly Discover,ed. 'Eviderice~J\ Defendant's Chance for a New Trial, ·as N.Y.L. Sch. L .. Rev. 31 (1983) . , . .(3) ~ Jai~house.Lawyer's M~pm~~ 9&.10 Colum. ~um: Rts. L. Rev. 1 (1977-78)' · · · .. · · · · . . · · '. · · . , (4) Coh;en, .Post-Co11:vi('.tiop Relief jn the N~w. Xork Court of A.ppeals: New .Wine: in Brpken".Bottles; 35 ;Brooklyn ~.· Rev~ 1 (1968) .' '. ' . ·. . ' . . . ' ' . '- ·(5),.·P~ulsen, The Winds'.or Ch~g~::.Crinli~~ Pro~eciurein New York, ·1941-1965; 15 Buff. L. Rev. 297, 309-13 (1965) .. . ~ (f?) Comment: .Collateral Post-Conviction Remedies .4vailable to New York State l>risqn~rs,·32 ;Jfo:r;9ham,L .. Rev. 803 (1964) : (7) Comment: The Relation Between Habeas Corpus and Coram Nobis in New.York, 34 Cornell L. Q. 596. (1949) • ' • ' ~ - # • • (8) Note, The Expanding Scope of Coram Nobis, 13 Syracuse L. ;Rev. 1.16 (1961) . · · (9) Hearings on Coram Nobis Applications in New York,. 52 Col. L. Rev. 293 (1952) .. i_ (10) Recent Decision;' ·Criminal Procedure-Coram Nobis Later Attacks-Inherent Power of the Court, 13 Brook. L. Rev. 86 (1947) (11) Recent Decision, Criminal·Law-Coram Nobis--Right to a Hearing, 27 N.Y.U. L. Rev; 152 (1952) · i · (12) Recent Decision,: Cpminal Procedure-Coram ~obis Current Popularity Among .. ConVicts-:-Presumptions of Regular ity, 19 Brook. L. Rev. 137 (1952) ·. (13) Donoghue and .Jacobson, Coram Nobis and the Hoffner Case, 28 St. John's L. Rev. 234 (1954) · ·
253 § 38:1 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF
(14) Note, Criminal Law~Writ of Error Coram 1Nobis,1 :25 Fordham L. Rev. 'Z51 (1957) . ·, ,1· • · , · \ ... : , •. · t, (15) Note, Current Treatment of Cora.in Nobis ih Federal and 1 New York Courts, 33 St.. J ohri.'s ·L., Rev. ;gs (1958) -~. . ) :. : , ·.; · (16} Note; Corrective.Processes for· Unlawful Imprisonment,'15 Brook. L. Rev. 271 (1949) ·:.· .. :,., .. (17) Mendola, Parole Revocation in New.:~<;>d~;~:L~WA\~9
Practice, 57 N.Y.. St. B.J. 33 (1985) ...... l / :· _,. . (l8) Berman and Carron; Witness. Recantation~li"ow. Do~s.{It
Affi(eqt) a .JucJ~ent. of Cfoµvicti.cm ~'. _35. N. Y.. L~ ~ Sc~. ~· ~~~ .> ~9~ 1990 ; ·. . " . . j. : . . . '~' (19) Note, Criminal Law-State Indemnity for M~sc~age pf Criminal Justice, 21 N.Y.U.- L. Q. 422 (1946) r ·:--' • : •• _\.\ :. ·: • ;t: , ,~(20) aak.er,. ~Rbsarl(); Per $e Rule: R~st. in' Peace,' 22[5 N .Y.L.J. 1 1 Mar· 14 2001')' '· · · · · ·' ·'~ ' : ···" ~·.· •',•.;! "·•:.fi ' , ( • ' • ,.~, l . .. (21) Abramovsky, New ¥o~k's Last Common Law Cdriiliiai ?rocedute: ·The .. Writ of ·:Error·C6ram·Nobis,.i22a N~Y.L~J:··3 (M~, 31, 2000)-r .ri ··, · ' .. : :<~.·: '.I'·.~ · . . '"' .. :'., :::.:, '.i .(22). Rud.erm~n, T~e Wrongly C,onvicted May R~cover Civil Damages, ·But Must· Meet Exacting· Standards of Proof,~ 74 ~.:Y. St. B.J. 30 (Feb. 2002) . · · · · · · .. · ,., : - . ,- .- • . . : • ,,.---., y ' . • . . ' . .·. l .._-, ~ ~ . . ' . . . ; . ; . . . ' : (~3). L~ve·~t~.al, ·A. Sury~y" 6( ·F,ed~ral a11cl Sta.~~ Co~r(ts' Approaches to a Constitutional Right" of Actual· Innocenc~:. .,is There a Need for .a State Constitutional Right in New York.'inOt:lie Aftermath·of C.pl §:440;1.0(l)(G-1)?, 76 Alb.''L; Rev. 145:f(2012- 2013) . :·. ~ ; \' ' . . " . '!.: ·• ' : • _... ' ~ e24) Portlpck, The Exl>~~fon ·of New York $tate Post-ConVi~o~ Relief: 'People v; 'Seeber and the·· Exten:sibri of Cpl 440.lO(l)(B)
Beyond ·Brady, ·77:Alb. 'L. Rev. 79 {2013~2014) · ·, . , j • 1 · • (25) Recent: Development; Prisoner Heid Efititled 'to· Coram · Nobis Hearing-Upon Allegation. of Disirict -Attorriey's ·Use of Excessive Bargaining Pressure for Plea of Guilty,i ·59' Colum:·L.
Rev .. 806 (1959) · ,._. ! , (26) Castiglione, CPLR Article 78 Proceedirigs and Interlc:>c·u tory Appeals During an Artiele 78, .P11o~eeding; 77.-Alb: iL. Rev. 1 127.(2013) ·,·,. , . i; ; ';''{V' j: :,, I • ,, .•. ' ·U: , .-- ; ~ 1: . § 35:2 ~otio~ .. ~~;vacate jq~en~;:µnde,.. New York Criminal Procedur~_J;.,aw § ~0~10 . ,.. .1 • , •. • The princlpal postconvictfon remedy in New·York:is the motion to vacate judgment remedy, :authorized by N.Y .. Crim;: 1Proc·. haw § 440. l 0. ; :· , : L .1 ; · . , : · , : .. : • ' ~ The §440.10.remedy, was 1 ehactedinto:law·in,1970. Ac't of May 20, 1970, ch. 996, § 1, 1970 N.Y~·LaW's 3117, 3258. to 61. The rem~
254 I
NEW YORK. . . ·' ...... _"'' §:35:3 edy. is codified· in rthe ;first section· ("Motion to Vacate. Judgment") of Article 440 ('~Post-J udgmen~ ~otions") of Title M C'Proc~edings After Judgment") of Part 2 ("The Principal Proceedings") of Cb~pter 1 11-A ("Qf t~.e Co~o.li,dated ~~ws~:):of the Criminal Pro ~edure L~~ of_McKinpey'$ 1 CqnsoJ.id~ted,_~aws. o(~ew Yo:i;-k An-
notated,(N.Y. Crim. ~oc;.La)V.§ 44Q.10) ...., -1 • ' • N.Y:. Crim~:Proc~ ·Law··.§ 440 .. 10 is .pro~dur.ally:implemented by N.Y ..-Crim. Proc.. Law,§ 440~30 .. · , · · ·: ~,··: . , . . The§ 440.10 remedy is· in the il~ture orcoram nobis, available in· the convicting'. cour.t. In· fact; 'most of the grounds for coram nobis ·relief' previously authorized. under the ,common law were codified in§ 440.10. People v. Syville, 15 N.Y.3d 391, 912 N.Y.S.2d . 477,,938 N.E.~d:~lO (2010). rll.e.remedy § 35:3 Mo~~on: -~~ ~~cate ju~gm~nt und~.r N:~W: .YQt~ ·,. : ,,\. Criminal Procedure· Law§ 440.1~Text or·· ··1' .. ·.:J · §.44o.l.o..;....Effe~iive 1lntil September-so/2012 · ' , ! ;' t ~ . - ' ' j t. • ; I \ .' ~ ! _.. ' • ' , • , i • ; 1 • : · I ' • : ~ . i· I.• N.Yr Crim. Proc. Law§ 440.10, which authorizes;New,York's principal postccmviction remedy, provides: ; . -t • '·. \. r • j : . . . - . . ,. . . . ~ I . . ~ - . , • ~ ~ J I. §· 440.10. Motion to vacate Judltµient . .. ' . ' .. . 1 ' 1r \ i ' ~ ' ' I I ' ' • ~ : ' e\.'•; l l ' ~ · . J -, • '· ' j j ~ ' ~. • ' ' ~ ~ t. •~ ! ' : ',·' ' • 1 ' •. e ·: 1: At .any .~1~e .after. :t~~ .. ell,try .of~- Judgment, the court m . which if wa~ e.iitered iriay~ u'.pC>n iiiotfon 'of the defendant; vacate . such judgmei:W ~poq 'the· grouncr that: . " . .; l . . ~ '.'.'..~· .. (aJ.)~ii~. ~-~~ dicftidt h~ve1 J~sclictipn ~f t~e~ actic;m or of ., , ' ~he p·~rspn.pft.~e'=:CJef~n~~t;·or: ·.. ;. · '.,' ,. • • : • ...... • 1 ~; ·1 . (b) · The judgment was! procured; .by. duress, misrepresenta- ,., i 1tion or- fraud ·OD the :part. of.the court or a ·pros.ecutor or a ;,· · per~on.actingfor or in: behalf of a court or a prosecutor; or ·. (cJ Mat~rial ~videilce '8:dduced at.'a 'tiial.re~_ulting: in the judgment was false:,and wiis; prior to the ·entcy1of the judg ment; known by: the prosecutor or by the co~'to 'be false; or ,._ . ·•cal, M~t.~rl8.1 eviden~~~ addtice~:'by· the .i>eo~.le.· ~(.a trial resulting, ~n the· judgment was procured. ~n 'violation of the defendant's righfa U:Iider. the I COiiStltUtion Of 'this. State Or Of 1 thetJriite(~ta~es;or · ~ - •.• ·;: ... , ·.: .. ·:! ·;~· .. ·;· _ .. ·· (0) During the proceedings. resulting.in.the judgment, the defendant, by reason of mental disease,,or.. defec.t, was .. incap~bl~: of @d.erstanding or parti~ipating :in such pro_ceed- ings; Qr . . · ...... (f), Improper and _pr.~j11dicial ·condqct not .appearing in the r,ecord:·occµrred during· a.trial resulting .in .th~ j,udgment 255 § 35:3 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF which conduct, if it had· appeared in the record, would have required a reversal of the judgment, upon an appeal there- from; or · · · (g} ·New evidence has peen discovered ~ince. the· entry. of a judgment' based upon a verq.ict of guilty after trial, which could not have been produced by the· defendant at the trial even with due diligence on. his· part and which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant; provided that .a motion based upon such ground must be made with due diligence after the 1 discovery of such alleged new. evidence; or • ·· (h) The judgment was obtained in violation of a right of the defendant under the constitution of this state or of the United States; or · (i) 'fhe j~dgment is a conviction yvhere the arresting charge was unqer section ?40.37 (loitetjng for tQ.~ ;(>UTpbse of engag ing in a prostitution offense, provided that the defendant was not alleged to be loitering for the pfilpose of·patronizing a prostitute or promoting. prostitution)· or 230.00 (prostitu tion) of the penal law, and the defendant's participation.in the offense was a .result o(havin,g been a. victim of sex traf ficking under section 230.34 of the 'penal law or trafficking in person~ under tP.e.TrafficJpng Victim$ ~ote~tion i\_ct (United States· Code, title 22, chapter 78); provided that_ · . · (i) a motion under. this ·paragr~ph 's)lali be inade with · ·due diligence, Mier· the defendant. has ce'ased to be 'a victim of such trafficking or has ·sought' ·serVices for victims of . · such trafficking, subject to. reasonable .concerns for the ··safety· of the defendant, family members of the .defendant, or other victims of such trafficking that may be jeopardized , by the. bringing of such motio.n,, or for o*er reasons consis tent with the purpose. of this paragraph;. and (ii) official ·documentation:·O£the qefendant's.status as a vi.qthn of sex trafficking or t,raffi.cking in per13o:r;is at the time of'the offense from a'federal, state' or local govern ment agency sliall create a presumptfon that the defen dant's partiCipation in the offense· was a r~sult ·of having been a victim of sex trafficking or trafficking in persons, but shall· not be required for granting a motion under this paragraph. · ' 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of sU.bdivision·'one, the court must deny a motion to vacate a judgment when: (a) The ·ground or issue raised upon the motion was previ ously determined on the merits upon an· appeal from the 256 NEW YORK § 35:3 judgment, unless since the time of such' appellate determina tion ·there has been· a 'retroactively ·effective change in the law controlling such issue; or · · (b) The judgment' i's, at the time of the motion; ~appe.alable . or pending on appeal,. and sufficient.facts appear on the rec ord ·with respect to tne ground dr issue raised upon the mo tio11 to pez:mit a4equate reView thereof upon. such' an_ appeal. This par~graph ·shall riot apply to· ·a motion under paragraph (i) of ;subdiVision one of tliis section; or . · · . I (c) Althoµgh su~cient. fB:cts appear on the record of the proceedings underlying the judgiµent to ~ave. perlhitted,. upon appeal from· such judgment,· adequate. review of the gro.~d or issue r~sed upon.~qe motiOh, no.such app~llate reVieW.'or determination occurred owing '.to the defendant's unjustifi able failure tp take ~r p~.#'ect fill: appeaI.dUri~g the p~esCTihed period or to his unjustifiable failure to rais~ such ground or issue upon an appeal actually perfected by him; or (d) The ground or iss~e rais'~trrelates ~oiely to the validity ofth.0 senten~e and not to the validity of'the conviction. 3. Notwithst.anding .the provi.sfon~ of s.ubdivision o~e, the court may deny a motion to vacate a'judgnient whe.n:. . . .. (a) Alth01.~gh: facts. in ~.uppon. _of th~ ground or .issue raised upon th~ motion ,.could wit4 due .<;li,ligence. by the. def~~~ant r h.ave readily.been made .to ~ppeEµ" on the.re~ordin a manner providing' adequ~t~ basi$ for reVi~w of. such. ground 01!. ·issue upon.an app~al from the judgµient, 'the. defendant unjustifi . ably failed to "adduce such. matt~r prior. to sent~nce ap.d ..the ~o~d or issue :~n. question· WB;S no~ s~bsequently .determined upon appeaL 'This paragr~p4 does not apply to a. ~otion . based upon depr,ivation of the ·right tp c~oUn.sel .at th~. tri~. or upqn failur~ of the trial court. to· ad.vis.a the.defen~ant .~f.such right! or to. a :motion ri~der. paragrapP, (i) .. of subdivisi~ii one of thi.s ~e~1on; or . · , . . . , . . · . · . . : (b) The ground or .issue raised upon the motion .was previ ously determined on· the: merits upon a prior motion or proceeding in a court of this state, other than an appeal from the judgme~t, or upon a motion.or proceeding in: a federal court; unless since the time o( ,such determination there· ~as been a. retroactively effective change. in the law controlling such issue; ~r . (c) Upon a previous· motion ·made pursuant to -this section, ·the defendant ·was in· a position ·adequately to raise· the ground or issue underlying the present motion but did not· do so. . 257 § 35:3 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF , '.:; Although. ~e court may deny:.the motion-.under any of the . circ\J.IIlstances· specified in this subdivision; in the interest of justice and for good cause shown it may in its· discretion ~ant the motion .i,f it is othe~s.e meritorious anq vacate the . ;, •·· d • t'· : • • I . . . • • . JU, ~en.~. . , , : . . . ·.: . . ... : 4,. If the· collrt grat;its the .ip~tiori, Jt m~t, ~~cept ~s, proVided ··.~in sub?i\ision· five or sj.x :Of thl$. section, vacat~ the jµ~griient, 1 and .~.ust· di~µiis~ t1;1e accu.satory \nstrume~t, 9r order ~ new · 1 ' trial;, or take such .. other. actfon as . is. a'ppropriate , in the 1 circumstances. · · · .l • · : .. , 5: ·upon_ gr~nting the motlQn ·:upon· the· gr~.wid, as prescribed ~ I_n·p·ai:agiaph- (g)"of subdivision one, that newly discovered evi _·· qence; 1c}:'eEites a pr~bapility: ~hat ,had ·such 'evidence been· '.;received at the trial I the ··verdict would have been more favor- • . able :to· th~ aeferi.dant' 'fn 'that ;the 'conviction 'would have' been .for·'~. _less·er· offense •thaD: :~;hei one ·~ontained: iµ'. the: verdict, the . court may"eith~r:. . ' ! ... · ... . • .... ,. . ' ' :· • : . • f - ·.' :; . l ' . '•::;. ' ' . '.': . . : . (a) Vac~te.the judgm~nt and order a·ne~ trfal;·.;or ... ; . .(b) Withi; th~: conse~~;:QfUie .peop\~, modlfy t~~ j{iggment by reducing it to one 01f conviction for such lesser offenee. In such'! Bas~; ·th~·- ·:court . iAust -~~~seritenc~ · · ~he· .defendant 1 accordingly. · :· · · · .. "' · · ·· · · ' : · · · i · · -·-a·~ .:Ifthe.·court grants·a~·motion tind~r paragraph (i:) of subdivi- sirin: oiie of tliis ·s~ction; ·it must !vacate; t~e ·judgment· and 'dismiss the' accusa:~ory instrument,· .and' may1 -take su'ch ad . clitional ·action):ts is '.appropri~te in the ciTcwilstances. ·; · : ... 1.:; tJpon ~-n:~w:trial re'sW.tih_gJrom ·an order-,vacatirig a judg 'merl.t pursuant to this section,'- the iridictmeilt' is deemed to 'contain all' the 'counts artd-to ·charge all"the offenses: whfoh it : ·contained· arid charged at· the· time the previous triaL was~ com :! 'nienced·,'r~g~dless'dfw)iethef any 'co~nt was 'dismissed'by the. ~ .. -_co·u.tt:il?-._the ·ccm!s,e· o~ s~ch tri~l, ~xcept :(a) those '.UP~.~ or of which the defendant·. was acqll.1tted or· deemed to have been acquitted, and (b) those dismissed by the order vacatin'g the . judgment, .and :(c) those ·previously dismissed by·.aii appellate ·court' upon an~ appeal fronj. the judgment; or by any1 court· upon ; -a previQus. post-judgment· motion.· . . s~ Upon.. an· order·which·vacates·a judgment based upon a ··plea ·of guilty to an· accusatory in~trument or a: -part thereof, · but which· does not dismiss the~ ~ntire. accusatory instrument, the criminal action is, in the absence of an eX}>ress direction to · . the contrary, restor~d to· -its .prepleading. status and the accusa _tory instru~ent is deemed to cont~in all the counts a:nd to ·.:charge' all the offenses .which. i~·contained and .charged at the time of the entry of the plea, except those subsequently 258 NEWYOlU<·· . § 85:4 dismissed wider circumstances.specified in paragraphs (b) and · (c) of su.bdivi,sion six. Where the pl~a of guilty was_.ent~red and ··,, a~cepted,. pur$q.ant to subdiv,ision ·three. of e~ction 220.30, upon , ~the, condition .thatjt con$ti.t~ted .a. cQlllpl~~ di$position. no.t only of the accusatory~.iQ$trµm~nt .u~derlying the Judgment vacated .. Jlµt alsQ ,of-o,n,e o_:r;. ID:Ore other a~~1:1~a~JJY in~truµien_ts. against : the d~fendaiit then, .P~ilding. in. the;. sain~ ·co:urt, the order of . '.. v~c~ti~~-. co~ple~~ly ·;~e.st.~re~ s1:1ch: ~q~her .~c~usat~~t ~'.~~tru ., ments; .an4 such .~$ t)l~ q~~~. ~veil/ th9~gh such order c;li~nµsses . . the mfrin a~cus~t()zy i4~~tµiiei;it ·underlY4ig the jud~en~: , ' • .l ._ a • t , , -. . ~ j . ~ .• " _, . -. • ~ • ...... • ... : j • ,- • ' ! , l ! .' 1 : l ' l i i f ~ , ; -• I t ~: • ~ ~ _: ' ' • ' : '·- • ' ~ 35:4 'Motion t9.. :Va~~t~ J~dfP.:J:l~n~c~der Ne'Y ¥~k.1 ,. ' ..· ··. . Criminal Procedur~.!Law § 440.1a-;.Text· of'. •• 1 . § ~o~i~:Ette~#\re'. pt,t~6~r~f~'2oi2''' ; • · · '. J:·: · i.· 1 ·. '· ;¥~~-~o.~ ·.:_MJ~t~~ t~ ! ~#~il~#Jtitl,pn~~~~- .·· I, • _ !. .. : . ~ •.. 1. At any time after the entry of a ju9gme~~,_the c;Qurt in .w.,h:i~~. ~~ .~~s en:t~r~~ may, ~p?:n .m~~io~ ?ft~~ d~f~~~~' vacate such.judgment. upQn the ~een. Pj~cov~re~ ~inc~_ ~e entry of a judgm~nt based up~n a ve~dict of gµil~y aft~.r1 ~tial, which could not ).i~ve been _produced by the def~nd~nt at the trial evan .with d~e .diligen.c.evon,)1is part. and .w:hich..is ..of such 259 § 35:4 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND REUEF character as to create a ,probability. that had such eVidence been received at the trial the verdict would have ·been inore . favorable to the ·defendant.; :provided that :a motion based ·upon such ground must be made with due diligence after;the . discovery of such alleged new eyidence; ·Or , (g-1) Forensic DNA ~-eating of evidence performed siI~.ce tP,e entry of a judgment; (1') in the case' of g' defendant convicted after a guilty plea, the court ~arfdetermined that the defendant has demonstrated: a substantial probability that the defendant was actually innocent of the offense of which he or she was convicted, or (2) in the case of a defenda~t _c9nvic~e4 a~er a:tpal,. ~he court has. ,determined that th.er~ exists.·a·reasQnable. prob~?.Wty tl.i.~~'·the verdict would have been .more favorable to the .defendant. (h) The jud~e.nt w~s... ob~,aj~~4 in viola~i·o·n: ~fa right of the defendant under the'horistitiition of·tni:s state· or of the · United States; or '· · · . (i) The Judgment is a' convict.ion where the arr~s~ing charge was under section 240.37 (loitering for the purpose of engag- : ing fa a prostitution offense; prov:ided ·that thei defendant was not alleged to be loitering for ·the purpose of patronizing a person1 for·prostitution or promoting prostitution) or 230,00 (prostitution) or 230.03 (prostitution in a school zone) of the penal law; and the defendant's 'Participation in the offense was a· result of having been· a !victim: of sex· trafficking under . section 230.34 ·of the penal law, labor trafficking unde~ sec .tion 135·.35 .of the penal law,-_ aggravated labor trafficking .. under section 13.5.37 of the .penal law, compelling prostitu tion under section 230.33 of the: penal law, or trafficking in persons under the Traffi~king Vict~s .Protection ~ct (United States Code, title 22, chapter 78); provid~d that· (i) a motion u~d~r this. paragraph s);lall be ·made with due diligence, after :the defendant has ceased. t.o be a victim of such trafficking or compelling prostitution crime or has sought services for victims of such trafficking or .comp.elling prostitution crime,, subject to reasonab.le concerns for the · s¢'ety ~f the 'defendant, family members of the .defendant, ., · or oth~r victi.Ins· of such trafficking or· compelling prostitu . tion crime· that may be jeopardized by the bringing of such motion, or for other reasons consistent ·with the purpose of this paragraph; and ·.: · (ii) official documentation· of the defendant's status as a victim· of ·trafficking; compelling 'prostitution or trafficking in persons· ·at the time of.the offense from a federal, state or local ·government agency shall create a presumption 260 NEW YORK . ' ' ( § 35:4 that the defendant's participation: in the ·offense was a result of having been a victim of sex trafficking, compelling prostitution or trafficking in 'persons, but shall not be required for granting a motion under this' paragraph. 2. Notwithstanding the .provisions of subdivision one, the · court must deny a motion to vacate a judgment when: · · (a) The grouri.d ot issue· raised upon the motion was previ ously determined on the merits upon an appeal fr~nn ·the judgment~'unless _since the time' of such appellate determina tion there has been a"retroactively'effective. change in-the law controlling such issue; or I . (b) The judgment is; at the time of the ·motion:, appealable or pending on appeal, a~d suffi.ci.ent facts appear on 'the rec ord with respect to the. ~o'1Iid. or issue raised ~pon· t~e mo tion to permit 'aqequate .review thereof upon such an. appeal. ·This paragraph shall. not apply to a motion under paragraph · (i) of subdivision one· of this section; or · · · · · . (c) .Although sufficient facts appear on. the r~cord of the proceedings ·und~rljring thejudgment.to have permitted, up.on . . . ~ppeal from such juc;I~~~t, ad~quate review ,of the ground ., or issue raised, upon the. motion, no such appellate re\tlew or d~termination; occurred o~ing to the defend~nt.'s unjustifi able failure to. take. or .Perfect an appeal during. the prescr;i.bed period or to his unjustifiable failure to raise such. ground or issue upon an appeal actually perfec~ed by him; or · : _,(d) ~e gro1:1i:tci or.issue raised~~iates ~olely to.the validity ·or the sentence· .and not to the validity of the convictfon~ · ·a.· Notwithstari~g the p~oYi~io.ns ~f s~bdivisi~n o~e, the court may deny a motion to vacate a judgment when;. . ·.(a) Although facts-in support of the ground or issue raised upon the. motion could with due diligence by the· defendant have readily been made to appear on the record. in a manner providing adequate basis for review of such ground or. issue . upon an appeal froiµ t~~ judgment, the defenda~t unjustifi ably· failed to. adduce su~h matter prior to senteQ.ce and .the .. ground or issue in question was not subsequently: determined upon appeal. This paragraph does not i:ipply. to .B:· motion based _upon· deprivati<:>IJ. of the right to counsel. at the. trial or -~ upon failure of the trial court to ~dvise the. defendant of $Uch right, or to a µiotion under paragraph (i) of subdiVision one of this section; or (b) The ground :or issue raised upon the motion· was. previ ously ·determined. on the merits upon a·· prior motion or proceeding in a court of this state, other than an appeal from . 261 §.35:4 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND I RELIEF · ·the judgment, or upon ~'. -inntiqn. or, proceeding in :a: federal · .; , ; ;·court~ 1Unless 'since the' time, Of•SUch.-determination there has ;been !a .retroactively effective· change fo the law :cont,olling suchissue; or· · ...r .• ; , .: ~· ,,. : :' . , • '· •· (c) Upon ·a .previousiniotion'.made pursuant to .·this ·section, the defendant was :in· a; p.osition adequately .to raise. the grQµn,d or issue unde~l~~ the,pr~~e~t ~ptiqµ b:utdidnot d9 0 ,.• so. •I '• 0 ', ' : • • : • : ' 00 ' ' • .' . '-. '.1• .··~ Althol:lghi.th~-coµrt.may.4,enY.:the,.~o~ion µnder any,,of the . P.ircumstances ,specified in this .subdivi$ion, in the .iµterest of justice and' for good cause shown -i~ IJiay. i;n its.mseretion.grant . the m9tion if it i~ otherwise. merltOriou's alid I vacate the jud~ent~· ;) . '·· ... . , . . : . , ::.\.: , 1 · .. , 4~.Jf the 1 ~coiirt gr~ts:the m.o#~n, it must, ex~ept ~provided ' in s'.ub.diVi.$iori ·five or· 'six ,of this section,. vacate Jhe; judgment, . ,'anµ.¢~st dis~iss 11the'"accusatory ins·t~ment,. -~~;order a new : l trial;'• or take' such ot~~'r action · as• I is app;rppriate in the 1 1 circumstances. · · ' · ~ · ... · · · '· · · • · , · · · 5. Upon granting the mot\on upon 'the ground, a~· prescribed in 'paragraph' (g) of subdivisfon one, that· ~ewly discovered evi .. derice cre~tes :a probability that 'had ·such eVidence: been receiv~d ·at' the-trial 'the: verdict: would have·been more favor .. ' able ·tQ the deferidant: tn' that the Conviction would' fo:ive I been · for a· Iessef offense than the· one· cdntained-jn tlie :verdict~ the . court may ·'either: ' .. ' ..: . . ' ', - .. . ; . :' ... '. (a) Vac.ate the Judgment ~nd order a new trial;' ~r_·; . ': -Jb). Wi~P," th~ .con~ent: of th~ pe~ple, ;modify the j~dgnlent by reducing· it .tb one ·of cotivictiori for such lesser ·offense. In such ;ca:s·e·; the· court '·must1 re1-senteri'.ce' the· defendant accordingly. .I ' .; '. " ,: • • •, ; ;• .: • r;, . c 6~ If the court grantS a;motion under·paragraph.(iJ ofeubdivi : sion one· of this sectfon,- it must vacate ·the 'judgment and . dismiss the accusatory instrument,· and may take such ad " ditional· action as is appropriate in;the circumstances~· ·" 7. ·Upon h new trial resulting from an order :Vacating a judg :, ment pursuant to this section,· tlie indi~tment is 'deemed to ' ···contain -a.n~the counts ~n9 to charge· all the offense·s which it contained·' and !charged at :the ~line the p~vious trial was'· com :... ·menced,"regardless. of whether ariy count was disilrlssed by th~ " :court in the course of' such" trial; except (a) ·those; upon or of ' which the defendant was acquitted or deemed to''have· been acquitted, and (b) those dismissed by the order vacating the judgment, and· (c) .those. previously dislJlissed by. an appellate .court upon an, appeal from thejudgment,. or· by any.court upon , a previous post~judgment :motion., : ·. 262 I I ·.. NEwYoRK ·, ) §.35:7 . 8. Upon an ·order. which· vacates a judgment based upon:. a plea of-.-guilty: .t'o an .accusatory instrument or. a.. part thereof, but which does not dismiss the entire accusatory, instrument, t~e crimi~~l. actiqn is, in t~e ~bsenc~ qf ~ e~press direction to : . the. c9'ntrary; restored:·t~i its prepleadiiJ,g status and th~ aC'cusa- ... ,to~ 1 fnstrum.~!):~:~s 1 q~~~~~· ~~·.contai~. ~11.t~~-·.cbunt~: and t9 ·' charge .all' ,·th~ QtfeD:ses which_ ~t contameQ. artd charged· at .the ".time ·of 1the entry ·9f ·the') plea, except. ·those subsequently > dismis~ed under" circumstances speci~ed in paragraphsi.(p) and · (c} of subdivision1 ·six. Where. the plea 'of guilty was· entered.·and ·.~accepted;, pursuantd;o subdivision three:· of' section· 220.30, upori :·the· condition that it constituted ·a complete disposition not only , of the "accusatory:iristrument :rinderlying:thejudgment vacated .: but :also J>f one1-or,cmore·oth0:1" ·accusatory instruments ·against . the ·defendant .then·.pending in thei same ,court,. the.order: of vacation completely restores such other accusatory instru ments; and such is the case even though such order dismisses the mai:o,. ~C<;l:l~atocy~--ip~tnµne:p.t ~~~e.rlying .t,h.e jµpgm~nt• ~.,:_,,-, . .... ~.. , "".; "' .) -. ~ .. r . -". . ~ ~ -: • .: ~ . , § 85:5 Motion to vacate judgment under New.Ybrk ... C.ri.mina.J Pr~cedur~ Law :§44Q.l~~d.~pen4~nt 1 .. . ciVil actiOn ...... ' .. ' ' . " , " ". ' ';_ >,~ r ) , .-· .· "" !.. ' -~ _, ' ~ ' .. -' ' ~ ~ • . The.a,§· ~40 .. 10 _remedy. is·ran :ind_ependen~~~civ:il.action, not a postsentencing phase of the original crimin..alcase, Se~, e.g.,,Peop4f# v.,}{alenti,)75 A.D.?!f. 489,, ..572 ;N.V ..S.2d .... 7~f? (3,~ D~p't.~9911) (a §.440.10 motion.. i~ a·.. :re~~dy, sep~~te tµl4. cUstinct .. from )the crim- inal action). · .. · · ·· ' .. · t. .. · • · · · .. · • ' • . . ; ..~ ~ '. I , ' ' I.. : .. I ' • ' § 35:6 .Ml!tion .to vacate judP,tent :under' N'ew York . ~· ! ; • · · . · . Cruirlnal Procedure Law;§440.10-0U&tody ~ · .. requirement .1. :" • ; ·,, '· ·.. ; · " .·-~·J'' · • Nothing in§ 440.10 require~,th~tthe :~~nvicted p~rso~ seeltfu:g r~li~fbe. r¢strai,rted .·of liis ·liberty;. aricf there. i~ ,no' dustody 'reqmre~ merit in·§ 440.10 proceedings. · .· · . , .. -· · · · • •·_•i ~~ •-,.~. ~ "' .. ;'!.;·~~ '. I!'' '. '1 •. ~·I •'.• l § 35:7 Motion to vacate judgme~t· ~der New York·· · . Criminal Procedure Law § 440.i~tatute otr · "· limitations .... 1. ·; : ·' · ..- •. ._: · : . ;·: : .·There is n.q'sta.tu.te"pfllnlitaffons ibii applying'tor § 440.1o·reµ~, and the applfo~~ion (or reli~f, entit~~d ."Mo~ion to· y~~-af~' J~dg~ ment," may ~e filed lilt.any tune. N.Y. Criin. ~oc'. ~aw•. § 4~0.10(1) (a defendant· may use.!§'440.10-rellledy·at any ~e ~~rth~ eD.:try of a judgment). People v. Perez, 162 Misc~ '2Cl 750~' 616 N.Y.S-.2d 928 (Sup 1994) ·(there is ~o·;time rlimit· on -making a -§·440"!10 motion)~ . • , . · · . .. . . ; ·: ; · , ·, , · · ~ .. . . ,·, : ·-. 263 §,35:8 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF § 35:8 Motion to vacate judgment under New York.; Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10-Right to counsel (:·· . • . . · The· right to couns~l in § ·440.iO.' proc~edirigs. ~#st~. ·~der ·~ase law,· not statute. See People ex rei, WiltiaTf!..s: v.. iaVallee, 19 N.Y.2d .238, 279 N.Y.S.2d 1, 225 N~~.2d 7~5 _(~~67). But see People v .. Richardson, 159 Misc. _2d 167, 60;3 N~Y.S.2d :709 (~up 1993) (the Q.efend1mt moves to.' v:acate her conviction on various groU;Ilds; defendant also requests the court appoint counsel on .this motion because she lacks. funds and is unable to obtain an attorney. who will vqlunteer:to.·assist her; New York courts. have .the inherent power to assign counsel to indigent criminal: defendants; this court will exercise its inherent .power to appoint counsel in a proper matter ·and will not exercise its inherent power fo: appoint counsel in an improper·cas~). ·~ · § 35:9 · · Motion to vacate judgment under· New York - Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10-Grounds for relief ... , ... Under·§ 440.lO(l)(a) tcl'(h), N.Y. Crim~ Proc. Law, the grounds for§ 440.10 relief are: = · · · · · · (1) · The· convicting :court lacked jurisdiction of the action or of the person of the defendant. ' . · . · ·.' '(2t The judgment was proctired by duress, misrepresentation, or fraud 'on the part of the court or the prose~utor:'" · . · · (3) Material evidence known to be false by the prosecutor or court was used at the trial. (4) Material .evidence ~dduce For.case law on 440.lO(l)(a) to (h)~ s~e, e.g., People v. McLean, 24 N.Y.3d 125, 996 N.Y.S.2d 589, 21 N.E.3d 218 (2014) (police of- 264 NEwYoRK § 35:10 ficers had .reason to believe. that attorney-,client relationship be tween, defendant and attorney who had represented him in rob• bery prosecution had ceased; .and thus officers' questioning of defendant regarding murder outside attorney's presence did· not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right. to counsel for purposes of defendant's motion to vacate); People v. Jones, 24 N.Y.3d 623, 2 N.Y.S.3d .815, 26 N.E.3d 754 (2014) (defendant was entitled'to an evidentiary hearing·on..bis· motion to vacate judg ment of.convictipn for murder ~d rape·b~sed on newly discovered evidepce, w:h~r~ he proffered DNA evi4e.nce estab~ishiµg that three of.18 hairs tested eJ:ecluded.him as a contributor, and that a fingernail scraping c.ontajiiing. DNA of someone other than µiur• der victin;i e;Xcluded him as w:eU, and, in light· of dispu~e between .defendant.and state ~~·to reliabilify of DNA testing· and results, defe1idant. shou)4 have been afforded opport1,lllity to· pr9ve by preponderan~e of evid~nce that had sue~ DNA evidence been. pre sen~ed at trial, he woul ·265 § ·S5t10 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND REUEF has been entered may vacate the· judgment on the ground that new evidence. has been .. discovered since the. entry ()f a judgment based rupon· a verdict of guilty after trial, which could not have .been, produced by the defendant at the trial .even with due dili gehce on 1his partiand which. is· of.. such,.character ·as to create. a probability that'.had .such. evidence been received at the trial the verdict would ·have· beerl more favorable to the defendant, proVide~ that a -motion based:upon such ground must be maqe with ~due: dilig~nce; after· :the" discovery of ·such. alleged new evi dence;· consideration· ·ofi'recantatfon evidence· involVe$· the· .follow ing factors: (1) the: inherent~ beli~vability. of the substance· of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's denie'anor both' at trial and at .the evide~~iacy'healirig; (3) the eXistence of evidenc~_·co.rrobo rating the. trial testimony; (if). the 'reason~ offered for 'both the ttjal t~sti~ony ;and. tne rec~ntati.on; '(5) the import~nce of facts established. af trial as reaffirmed ih the''tecaritation; and (6) the relationsI#p be~een;.the witnes~' ~d· ·266 I , NEW YORK §.35:14 bar.red if the. claim for relief was previously,.determined on the. merits ·in a prior·§·. 440.10 motion: filed· by the same: convicted perso~.or if the· claim could have been raised in the prior § .440.10 motion' but was. not~ :·· = · · For: case law on§ 440.tO', see; 'e.g., People'v~ -Stewart, 16 N.Y~Sd 839~:923 N.Y.S.2d 404~ 947 N.E.2d l182:(20lf) (defendant'S'Clahfi that· ·bis ·guilty plea to attempted rtibbery iin the firs·t degree was involuntary 'because the· c~url ·failed to advi$0 him ,of tl~e specific term 'of pQ~trelease supervisfon. during the.plea proceeding was not reviewable on collateral motion tO vacate the plea,: absent justifica~on for failing to pursue claim on direct appeal). · t • i • , t ~ {! . I ' r , ' - • ·1 35:18 Motion to· vacate ·judgment. under New .York· · .· · ·:. · ·• Criminal Procedure Law § ·440.l~Denial of relief ' . If. it. appeifrs ·by con'.~eded ·of· tmcoJitradi~tecf .~llega:tiOhs' ;of tlie movH1g papers or' of the answ'et,' o;r bY. ~~l;iestionilb1e. ~o.c\lllien; tary proof, that there are circumstances requiring deiiial of.the :§ 440:1o·motfon ·pursuant to §·44o.tot2), tlie.:courlmust swlmiar- . .ily'deny it: ·1t it 'appears''that there ate'~Cfrctlnist~des authoriz ing~ ,thoitgh'' not 'requiripg",: deiiial/;of fP..e motfon purs~~ht' 1 .#> §J440.1Q(3),sthe court niay 'in 'its discretiofr either· sWiunarily deny t~e ~otiOn_.or pro_ceed fu 'cbiis~der'j;~e"~etjts tliereof. ·N:Y~.c~. Proc. Law § '440.30(2). Under .the dircumstances set forth m.. N.Y. Criin.· Proc. Law § 440.30(3)~' tlie ·§ .440.'10 motion 'may be' gran~d on the merits ~thout' coridu~tllig t{hefil;ng; ·and· un'.de:l• the tir;. cumstances'.set.forlh in N.Y.''Crim. :Proc. Law.§ 1 44(t30(4)~ the § ~0.10 'moti01;f may be «:Jellied. o~ the merits''~tliout cohducijrig a~hearing .. Ifthe' § 440.10 fuotit>ri is ndt ~s)losed'tinder §· 440.10(~), (3), or (4), the convicting court shall' conduct an evidentiary hearing. N.Y. Crjm. Proc. Law § 440.30(5). . .. . ~A§ 440.10 pr~c.eedilig·9o·me~ ~Q{an ·en·d -wh~·n the convictin~ court denies or grants the· inotlim~ ta··vacate judgment. The procedures to be followed when the motion ·is granted·; are set forth in N.Y. Crim~ Ptoc~ Law § 440.10(4) to (7).,In determiriing the motion, the. convi~ting co\llt.must~ set forth on the.~re~o~d its findfogs of fact,. conclusfo!i.s ,of law, ~n(.,r~asons. for its determination. N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law§ .44p.30(7),. I , · • • , ' , ' I • 1 ' ~ • • "• I < , '§'35:14 · M~tion to v~ca~e-Jµdgm~nt ~d~r Ne1w York' · ,' .c~a1 Pro~ed~e ~a~.§ ~40.l~~Ap~e~~, ··_··,; In a death sentence case, the defendant,may ,appeal as of right to the New York Court of Appeals· an order denying a,§ 440.10 motion to vacate judgment~ N.Y~£-Crim. Proc. Law§ 450.70(2). In a noncapital ·case, the defendant, may appeal an· order.1denying a § 440.10 .motion .. to vacate-judgment to an, intermediate appellate 267 § 35:14 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF court (the Appellate 'Division of the New York·Supreme Court), provided that· under N.Y. Crim .. Proc. Law § 460.15 a certificate granting, leave ·to appeal·is issued. N.Y..· Crim. Proc. Law § 450.15(1). In a death sentence case, the people may appeal· as of tj.ght to the New York Court of Appeals from an order granting a defendant's.§ 440.10 motion t.o vacate judgment. N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 450.80(1). In a noncapital-case, the p.eople may· appeal as of right .to an .interme 268 NEwYoRK § 35:15 whether by· the defendant or by·another person •Or persons. Such sworn all~gations may be based upon personal knowledge . of the affiant: or upon information ·and b~lief, provided that in the latter event. the affiant must state .the sources ·of such infor ~ation and the. grounds of such belief. The defendant may fur ther 'submit documentary evidence· or: information supporting or tending. to support the allegations of the moving papers. The · people may file with the coutt, and in· such case must serve a · · copy thereof" upon thee defendant or his counsel;. if any, an answer denying or adiiiitting ·any or all of the allegati6ns of the 'motion papers, and ma:y further submit documentary" evidence or information refuting or·tending 'to refute\' such allegations. · After all papers .of both parties ·hav'.e been filed, and after all ' doc'unientary evidence ot infor.m~tioii, if any, h~s been submit . ted, the ·court must conside·r the same· for the purpose of ·ascertaining whether the'.motion is ·determinable witb'.out a hearing to resolve qu~~tions 'of fact. . . .1. [Eff. Oct. 1, 2012: See~ .. als.o, subd:. 1; above](a). A.motion to vacate a judgment pursuant to sectiOn 440.10 of this article and a.· ·:motion to set aside· a sentence pursuant to section 440.20 of this article must be made in writing and' upon rea sonable 'notice to the people. Upon the motion,· a ·defendant who is in a position.adequately to raise more than one ground should r~i$e~ every such ground .. upon which he. or she intends to challenge the judgment or sentence. If the motion is based upon t~e existence _or occurrence .of facts, .the motion _papers must. contain sworn allegations .thereof, whether by the defe:µ.dant or by another person or persons. 'Such sworn al.: legations may be based upop. _personal kno~ledge of the affi- . ant or µp~>n information and. belief, provided that in the lat ter · event the affi.ant must ·state the sources of such '· information· and the grounds ·of such belief. The defendant ~m.ay fllrther submit documentary evidence or information · supporting-or tending to support: the allegations ·of the mov- 1 • • • ing papers. The people may file with the court·; and in such ·.·. case must serve a copy ther-eof upon the defendant or his or ,.; her counsel, if.any, an answer denying or admitting any or : all of .the allegations 'of·t!1e motion papers, a!ld may f~rther .. :· subnit~: documentary. evidence or information refutmg or ! tending to refute such allegations-. After all papers of both parties have been filed, and after all documentary .evidence or information, if any, has been subJ;llitted, the court must cons.ider the same for the p~pose; of ascertai~ing whether the,motion is determinable withou.t a hearing to resolve ques- tions of fact. . . . . · , .r ; ;" (b) · In,.conjunction with the filing-or consideration of a mo tion. to vacate a judgment pursuant' to section 440.10 of this · article by a defendant convicted after ·a trial, in cases. where 269 §. 85:15 STATE PosrooNVIcTioN REMEDIES AND- RELIEF . the court· has ordered an eVidentiary hearing upon .such· mo tion, the court may order that· the people ··produce. or' make available .for inspection property,· as· [defined ·in. subdivision · ,. three of.section•240.,10;of this· part;·in its possession, custody, or control that was s'ecured ;in. connection with the'investiga ,. tion or prosecution .of:the.defendant:upon credible allegations · :· by the ~~fen4ant. and a :findi~g1 by the ·court that. such prop . erty, if obtained, would .be probative to the .determination, of ~, defendant~s actual ·.innocence,· and, that the-~r:~quest is ;reaso.nable-.. The.· co.urt shall. deny or limit such a .reql;le.st.Jipon . -.. ·a: ..finding th~t such: ~. ~~qµest, if granteq, ."'ould ~llr~aten. ~he _ int~gri.ty;1o;r chain .of ~us~o~y of property or tl;l.e integtj.ty of . the processes .OX'. fµnctfons ...of a laboratory conducting DNA . wsting,, -pose'. a risk of ha~,. intim1dation, ernbarras$me,nt, I. repris~, or ot;her sup$t~tially 'neg~tiv~e ,cons~quences to',.any pe~sqn~ I q.Jid~rilii~e ;the prope~ ,fµnc;tions qf law. enforc~~~nt iriCludiiig the confidentiali~f _of:i.aj'9mi,ants·,. pr op ~e, bas.~s; of any oth~r ,factor: identified by. "the. co\µ-t ·fo' t~e int~rests of jlJ'.stic~ -~r pub~cts¥~ty; The ~9tui ,~ha~l ~h~r J~ris\ire that . ant.~rqperty t>~9ducea·ptji'su~nt.to this paragraj>h_ is sµbject ,.(to a pro~ectiv~l ·or<;ler, whe~~ .appropriate. Th~; ROtitti~hall- deny any ~equest.made pur~u~mt to-this p~agrap:Q.wh~;re: . · (i) (l): the·_defendant's motion ·pursuant.to section 440.10 : of· this artfole does not· -seek to ·demonstra:te his or her actual innocence of the offense or offenses of·which he or ·· she was corivicted that are th~; subject 'Of the· motidn;. or (2) · . ·· ·the, d~fe·~dant has ·.not: preS1ented cre~ble· allegations and . ~ the coilrt has not found· ,that such property, if obtained, . ..woUld '-be probative to. the determination of' the defendant's ' . :~ctual ihnpceiice and· ~hat· the reque~t 'is: reasonable;. . - '.:'. 270 I NEWYO:RK -l ,. § so:U> ,,nal· Justice system~ or._: il_pon the safety, or welfare of the community;' and the defendant's· .diligence,· in. s~eking to .. ·1 . obtain the feqµested.propev.ty.or related.relief, the.interests .of.justice:·would be" served by considering the motion; .. ' ~; : ' (iii)- the defendant- •iif challenging .. a'judgment '.convicting . " I . ~him or- her- of :an offense;-that is not fl felony defined' in sec• 1 • : , _·, -~ion 10~00 ·of the penal law}· or J;: :· • • J , ' .'" ·' : ·i (iv); upbn a fiµdjng·''by,the' 1co.ui't that th·~.· p~operty. requested in this ·'nibtfon would be' available through other ,! . me'a~s ~ thitough j ·reasonab~e efforts. by: the .defendant to .. ; . ; obtain: such: property>· ~· ' ·' '.. J! >; .... ;. . . . I/~; i:.a.-' [Eff:·· ~ Y,ntii ,.-,:Oct~' : l'; ~·~·2012~. See, i also: : subd. 1-a, _. :_ bel~~~l~~).( ~Wli~~et:~1!~ d~ei;id~nt's ·~ot~on '.r~~~~~t~ :the~ perfor . ' .~anee of1 a foreds1c DNAtest'on specified ·evidence, and upon ~· · '. · ·.the;:co¥~~~~ 1 ·det.erm~.h~1!i0b: that_· any1·evid~ii~e · ·c~~~ain~ng = · • deoxynoonucle1c ·acid (~DN:A") was· secured m connection .. . ·With: the trial ·re.~lting iii rthe:jufigmentr the court shall grant · · · tbe:~pplicationtfot:forensiC!DNA1 t~~ting of such ·evidence · .. "l:ipOndtsJdetermination1that· i£·a· DNA test.had· been conducted · ·, · : . orii such ·eViderice, ·and if ·the "resulta. had 1been 1adinitted in the ; : ~tri.al .resultingdn. the: :j~f;lgment, ·there 'exists a ,r~asonable . . . : ·probability tliat; the veniict•;would have been more. favorabl~ " to the: defendant. <; c·;_-.:; ~:i •. .. · , . ·., . (b). 'Iil conjurtction with" the filing of; a motion under this subdivisiOn;··the·~ou~··m~y' direc~·the 'people to pr9vide the ·defendant With inforn,iation in-the possession of0 the people ' ' concerning:the·'Ciirrerit~physical·location Qf the specified evi .derice an~' if' the' ,sp·ecified' endence. no longer e'Xists or the i' physical lo~ation "of the specified evidence!is Urikn:owµ; a rep resentation to tliat· eftect a'.rid: information ·and· ·documentary evidence in ·the possession of the people' concernmg the last · kno:wn physical ·locatiol!· o~ such :sp~cified i evi~~ce~ ·If there is 1 • · ! · a; ~n9ing by:the ~court· that t~e ·specified· eVi.deD:t:e no longer e:Xists or the physical- lo'catiori.' 'of such s{)e·cified. eVidence is unknown, such informatiohiin ·and;ofitself'shall 'not be a fac tor from which any inference ·tinfavorable·'to the· people may ·: be:qrawn· by the court in= deciding a· motion under this section. · : ·The· court;·• oi;i ·· ni'otioli of· the :defendanti· may ·also issue a ;: . subpo·ena dtices 'tecUin directiilg)a public' or' private• hospital, l~boratoty or.·~thef ;entity to- ·prodhce such' specified. evidence .in ifs 1possession1 ·arid/qr· information· rand documentary evi {d~µc~)n' it's' possessioii' ccmcertring 'the l~catfon arl9. :status of 1 such specifi:E!d 'evidence." I I • • ' ; ' ' : . • ' : ; I ·. 1~a·.'_'.[Eff. ,O~t. _. 1,. ·. :2012~.' . See, also, .subd. 1-a, .a,bove.J(a) ·(l) Wh~~~- th~ ~defe~dant~s.@otio~ reqti.e$ta the per . i formance, of-~ for~nsic;DNA..test on specified evidence, and \' 271 § 35:15 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND REUEF upon the court's determina~ion that any evidence contain ing deoxyribonueleic acid ("DNA") was secured in connec- . tion with the trial resulting in· the judgment, the court shall grant the application for forensic DNA testing of such evidence upon its determinatio~ that if a DNA test had been conducted on such evidence,, and. if. the .res.ults had · been admitted in the trial.resulting in the judgment, there . e.xists a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defenqarit. . . (2) Where the defendant's motion for forensic DNA test ing of specified evidence is made ·following a. plea of guilty and entry of judgment;thereon conviCting him or her of: (A) a hQmicide offense defiriecl in.. article one h~dred twenty five of the. pe~al. l~w, ,~riy· fel,oey .sex tjffense defined in article one hundred thitj;y 9£ the p~l).al law, .a yi.olent ~elony offense as defined in p-aragrapl). ·(~) of ~:mbdivision o.ne of section·. 70.02 of the.. p~~al law, 9r (B).~y othe~ ,felqny of fense· to w.hich he pr she pled guilty. after being ·Charged in an indictment or.information in:superior cour.t With\one or more- of the. offenses listed in .clause (A) .. of· this subpara graph, then the court: shall grant·such'a motion 'upon its ·determination that evidence containing DNAwas ·secured in connection with the investigation or· prosecution of the defendant, and if a DNA test :had .been conducted, on such . -.eviqence and the results had. ~be~n: known' to. the. parties . prior to the e~tcy of .t~e q.ef~nd.a:Qt~s plea a.J;;l,d judgment tliereon, ~here ~xis~ a s:ubst~ntial pro!>ability th,flt_ the evi dence wo,uld have established the defendant's actual in nocence of the off~ns~ 'or .offenses that "are. the subject of the. ~efendant's motion; provi~ed,. howeve1:", that: (i) :th~ court shall consider whether the defendant had the oppqrtu~ty to request such ta.sting ptjor to entering .. . , ~ guilty ple~, .and,. where it finds that the defelld~~ had s:uch opportunity and unjustifiably failed to do. so, the court ni~y ·~eny such mot~on; and . ' . . ' ' ..! (ii) a court shall deny:·the· defendant's motion for fo rensic DNA testing where the·defendant has made his or her. motion ~ore th~n five years after, entry .of the'judg .ment. of coµvictjon; .except t~Jlt< the limitation period may be tolled if the defendant has .shown: (A) that he or she has be~n purswng his .or her:rights <;liligently and; that so~e .extrao.rdinary circumstance .p"rev.ented .the' timely filing of the motion for forensic D~A te~tjng;. (B) that the facts upon which the motion is predicated were unknown to the defend ant or his or' her attorney and could not have been· ascertaiµ.ed by the· exercise of due diligence prior· to the expiration of this statute of limitations; or 272 NEW YORK § 35:15 (C) considering all circumstances of the case including ·. but not limited to evidence of the qefendant's guilt, the impact of granting or denying such: motion upon public , confidence in the criminal justice .system, or upon the · safety or welfar~ of the community; and th~ defendant's diligence in seeking.. to obtain the requested property or related relief, th.e i~terests. of jtistice would be served by tolling such limitatiOn period. (b) In conjunc~ion. with. the filing of a motion un~er. this subdivision, the .court may direct the people to· provide ,the d~feµdant with i~1formation in the possession of the p~ople c9ncerning the clirrent physi~al,lo~ation of the specified evi dence and if the specified evidence. no longer. exists or the physical location Qf tli~ specified eVidence is unknown~ a rep resen~ation to. that effect· and information and documentary. evidence i;n the po~sess~on of the people .concerning the' last · lmown physical location of such specified evidence. If there is a finding by the court. that the speGi~ed evidence ~o. longer exists or the physical location of such specified evidence is unknown, such information in and of itself shall not be a· fac- ·. tor· from which any inference unfavorable .to the people may be drawn by the court in deciding ·a m~tion under this section. The court, on motion of the defendant, may also issue a subpoena duces tecum ·directing· a .public· or· private hospital, laboratory or other entity to produce_ such specified evidence in· its possession and/or information and documentary evi dence in its possession concerning· the location and ·status of such specified evidence.· ·. (c) In.response to a motion under this paragraph, upon no- . ·· tice to the parties ·and to the entity required to perform the search the court may order an entity that has access to the combined DNAJndex·1system ("CODIS") or its successor system to compare\ a· DNA profile obtained from probative . ·: b~ological material 1 g~~he:red in ccm~ectfon wit~ the investiga tion or prosecution of the defend~t ,against DNA: data}?anks l;>Y. .keyboard .s,earches, or. a simj.~~r method that ,does not involye up~oading,.upon.a court's determination that (1) such . profile compiies ·with feder~l .. bur~au· ·pf hwestigation or state requirements, whichever 'are appljcable and as such require- . ments are applied to. law enforcement agencies seeking such a. comp'arison, and that the ·data meet state DNA index system ifnd/or national DNA index system criteria· as such criteria are applied to law enforcement agencies seeking such . a: eomparisen and (2) if such co·mparison had·beeii conducted, , and if the results had Ileen admitted in· the trlal resulting in ' thejudgment, a: reasonable.'.probability eXists that·the verdict 273 § 35:15. STATE PosrooNVICTION REMEDIES AND. RELIEF _ · would have been more ~favorable: to the defendant, or in a · : . caae involving· a plea ·of guilty, if the· results had. been avail . able ·to the .defendant prior to ..the plea, a.~ reasonable prob . · abiJity.eXists that the· conviction would not haye resulted. '. For' ·purposes ·of-thiE?· stibdivisiOn, a, "keyboard search" shall . meall a search of a~ DNA·jlrofile against the d~tabank in . ; which. the profi.10 that. is searehed is' not uploaded to or maintained in the databank. · :· · · · · ; · . ' ' 2~ . If it appears by conceded or ulicontradicted allegations of . the' moving papers or of the answer~. ·or by unquestionable :' :docUmeiltary proof, that there ara' circumstances 'which require 'denial th,ereof pursuant"to subdivisfon "two _~f sectibn 440.10 or subdivision two (of section 440.20~ the coUrt must summarily deny the motion> If it appears 'that there· are' circumstances authorizfug~ though not requiring~ denial thereof pursuant to subdivision three of section 440.lo··or subdivision three of sec tion 440.20, the court may in its 'discretion either (a) su.mniar- , ily deny the motfon, or (b) ·proceed to consider 'the merits ·· thereof. -· : · · . · · · 1 ;. 3. Upon co~sidering the. merits· «>f the. motion, th~ court must . grant it without conducting 'a hearing ap.d vacate· the judgment . .. o+. set aside the. sentence, as the case may' be, if: . '. : . . '(a) The movir).g papers allege .. a: gro~d.:c(>n~tit-qting legal basis for the m~tion; 'Eµid . . (b) .Such· gro.und,. if ·based upon the .existence ·Or occurrence of facts, is supported by sworn .allegations thereof; and . , (c) The sworn allegations of fact: essential to support the . :, ·motion ,are either conceded by. the people to be. true or are .conclusively. substantiated by unquestionable .documentary .proof. , · · · ·· ·:·t .. • •.. · • " 4.· Upon:considering the merits~of the 1 moti0n, the court may deny it without conducting a hearlhg. if:· . · · .. , . .·. ·(a) The inovb1g papers· do not allege ·an.y ground constitut ing leghl ·oasis for· the motion; or~ ·.. · , · · · ··. · · · · ·· )tb) The motion' is based U:pon the: ~xi~teil:ce 'o~ occ~ence .. of _fac~S ·anq th:e ~oVing p~p:ers .~O not Cb~tfiln SWOt~ allega ; tiOhs substantiating' or·tenfilng· to' substii'ntiate all't\1~ es ,~:. : serlti~l facts, -~(reqUited.by' su~<µtisiOp.·_~ne; or ...... ': . .· . . : '· · (c).. An allegati~n!of fa~t ~s~e:r;i.tiru to· support:t):i.~. ~otj'on is . co~clusively refuted by, ~nque~t~oµ~~~e d~clµl}-~mtiµ-y _proof; ! < : f.o.~ i ; ·)' • . l ; • .: .' . j _' '.: I II . '• . • ) : .:.1 i ; j: . · 1 . i. ' · .. ·... (d) An allegation Qf fact,essentialto auppQJ;ttheimotion (i) . :. is ..contradic.ted•by ,a;cour:t:iecord. cu.~·,othe:u official document, ,o,r is made solely .. by;· the· defendap.t'.11nd ~is .µnsu.pported by 274 NEW YORK § 35:17 ! any other affidavit or evidence, and (ii) under; these and· all · the other .. circumstances atte.ntllng the .case,. there is ·no rea.. sonable possibility that .such allegation is true.-, , :~ ; , 5. If the court. does .-not: determine· the motion !pursuant to · subdivisfons two, three ·Or· four; it must 9onduct a. hearing and . .make· findings :of fact: essential to' ·.the .determin~tion thereof. ~- · The defendant has· a. right·: to .be present' at· such hearing. but - · may waive such right ii1 writing. .If he·does not so waive it. and ;,if he is confine.d in, a;_ pri'son· 01\other institutio.J,l ·of .thia, state, . the!court znµst cau~e him; to be ·produeed at:such hearing., .. 6t., ·At such a hearing,: the ·defendant has· the burden of .prov ing by a preponderance· of tlie, ·evidence eve.ry fact essential to ·support the motion. · :;_ ··; . '. i : ·7. Regardless of whether a:hearing·was conducted, the court, upon: determining the motion, :must: set ·forth !on: the record· ·it8 · ·findings ofifact; its conclusi'ons ·of:law: 'and· the 1reasons:for Its · determination. ·· -: · ; · . . . :.· ' ~ ~ , ! . . •: . ' j • '' • .; J ,; l • ( I (, . "' , .. "..::. ' § :35:16 ;"Motion ·to ·vacate., judgment .Un.der New York , •• ·.-1 ;_ ·, 'Crimiri.'al Procedure.Law§ 440.10-Jurisdiction-· Case law :,,,,~,i. . .. '..,. ·" '.. For. ·cas~ .. ia~.. on 'the. N~Y~ 'Crim~ Proc. -Law § 440-.ld(U remedy, s~e,.e.g.~_-People v.. ~ard; 45 A.·n.~d 1331,":846·N~YrS.. 2if 495~·(4th D~p't 2007).. (deferidant~s c'<'.mtention. pursqant t9 C:PL 440.1.0(l)(a), 1:~:, ~h~t 'the.. ~up~rior c~Uit .~¢.'ornl.atfoil was jUrlsdfoti.cn;utlly defec tiv~1,faay 'liav~ fuetj~;. alieanrig 09 whetP.er tjle f~llire: to ta:ke"a ti~~1:f-~ppe,;l,~. ·~as. J~~ti~~9\~. ts ~~qtli~ed · p~r~uant '.t'O. CPL 44:~~30(5).); .Pe.op~e. ~. Cupdra:@~ ~- ~~)7.3d ~~62, ~5~. N.~.S.~d a75, sao·N.E.2d 8'61 (2007) (defendarit;s.invalid waiver1 of mdictment 'before ~he. pleEtd ~lty tc>' first-degree .assaillt was .a jlirisdiction~ 'ci~fect •~~~:£' cium L not, be .... ~~ed •Jot;, t.:P.e' fh:st, tinie-. in a lµotiori. tp vjlca~e)us co~Yicti9??-;. de(en~a~~.· c?w4 ha~e chall~nged :the j defect 0 on direct·appe"al).'-'': \ ,:,· .~ : I . - ,,'I :• •'·' :·~'fJ1' > •. i~,t J '. ~ •l_J; I J\~ 1. J !' f ,· § ·sp;.1 ~ •. M(>tjon to vacate, Jqdpiell.t1 ui:Jde~. New Xork: . , , · "· ,~ criDigi&l ProcedUr~ Law·s 440.l~Hearuigs- ·. · . ·' ''--.'.Ca!)e· l"w · J : .. ::: - • ' ft · : · · , : : . . · ,. ' . • . •. ~ \' ' • ; • _t l ' : ... ~j ; > . . ' • l ~: ' .. • I For. ~ase. la:w .. on heatings :for motiQnS: to. v:a.c~t~ judgment,, ~s~e e~g.,. J'.f!oplejJ. Gross, _26 N.V.3d 689, 27 ~N~Y,.S;8d~~59, ~7. N.E.3d 73& (2016) (it.ds. withi~ t:rial eour.t'$ ..d.isc,1etiQn, to determin~ whether :a hearing on a m.oti0.n,tp;vacate sho:ulQ. .. be ordered,"but Court of App~als ,may review\that determination for a~ abµse of disc~etion}{:People::U. Joties;, 24[jli,Y..ad a~a,2 N¥.S.3d:81,5,,26 N.J~t3d_754,~2014).(unlike-.~any mQtio11ts.1io vacate a j~dgment of ~75 § 35:17 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF conviction based on newly discovered evidence, which, for example, involve affidavits s'U.bmitted by· ,recanting witnesses, or witnesses who have come forward after the guilty verdict, or evi dence that another person· confessed to the. crime, motions involv ing DNA testing,- analysis, and results .may not be easily disposed of on the papers, particularly when the. defendant has submitted evidence in admissible form that. goes to a central issue in the case, and the prosecution submits only hearsay statements in op position; defendant was entitled to an, evidentfary hearing on his motion to vacate judgment of conviction for murder and rape base_d on newly discovered evidence, where he 'proffered DNA ev idence establishing that three of 18 hairs tested excluded him as a contributor, and that a fingernail scraping containing ONA of someone other than murder victim excluded him as well, and, in light of dispute between defendant. and state as to reliability of DNA. testing and results, defendant should have been. afforded opportunity to prove by preponderance of evidence. that ,had; such DNA evidence been presented at trial, he would have received a more favorable verdict); People v. Chiu Mei Lan Kwok, 51 A.D.3d 814, 857 N.Y.S.2d 703 (2d Dep't· ·2008) (defendant's claim regard ing. her counsel's alleged misadvice as .to the effect of her guilty plea on her professional license was refuted by- her own affidavit, and, consequently, the trial court properly reje~ted it without holding a hearing); People v. Robetoy, 48 A.D.3d 881, 851 N.Y.S:~d 297 (3d Dep't .2008) (county court was not ~r~quired. to, hold a hearing·on defendant's motiOn to vacate the.Judgment.where the judg~ hearipg the motion also presiqed over the pri,or proc~ed: ings~ ·~nd his'hi~tory with the case,':coml;)iil'.ed wit~ t~.e "sub~is sions re.ceiyed. in connection with the mdtio"n, provided aniple basis upon which t~e court could decide the application withoµ~ a hearing); People v .. Perez, 18 Misc. 3d 752, 84~ ·N.Y~~.2d· 388 (Su,P 2007) .(conclusory ~allegations are i11:sufficient 'to sati$fy the def~ndant's evidentiary .Qur4~n:·on.· ~·motioxi"~ .v~~ate j~'dgnie.nt, or to justify holding a hearing); People v. 'Cephas, 26 A.D.3cl 259, 809 N.Y.S.2d 78 (1st Dep't 2006) (motion raising ciarm that: judg ment was procµred by prose~utor's knowing use Qf false material testimony· w~s· prop'erly ,dismisse~ .w~thout_ a .heilri.ng)'~ Peop~e v. Murray, 25 AD.3d ·911, 807. N~Y:s:2d 473 (3d. 1)ep'(2006) (mov ant was not entitled to hearing on his motion to vacate convic tion, 'following his' plea of guilty to flr~t-degree attempted promot ing prison contraband., '-where' motion alleged ·only bare factual allegations in support thereof and did not expressly raise'.: issues of ineffective, assistance or" innocence); People v. ;Passino,· 25 A.D.3d 817, 807 N.Y.S.2d 2-~0 (3d. Dep't 2006) (motion raising ineffective counsel claiin was' properly dismissed· without a hear ing); People v. Lugo, 25 A~D~3d 460~ 807· N.Y.S.2d .94· (1st Dep't 276 \ ' NEwYoRK § 35:19 ' 2006) (motien raising newly· discovered evidence claim was properly dismissed without a· hearing); People v. Griffin·, 24 AD.3d 972, 805 N~Y.S.2d 482 (3d Dep't 2005) (trial court· was not required to hold hearing on· defendant's motion. to vacate at tempted assault conviction on basis of alleged ineffective· assis- . tance of counsel in failing to obtain defendant's institutional rec ord or secure testimony offour prison employees); People v.. Glanda~ 18 A.D.3d 956, 794 N.Y.S~2dr712,(3d Dep't 2005)(the no.nspecula tive portions of the § ·440.10 motion .address· i'Sicts contained in the trial record and.known at.the: time of conviction; thus, no ev- . identiary hearing was required);'. People v. Fernandez, 13 A.D.3d 271, 788 N:Y.S.2d 39 (1st Dep't 2004), order aft'd, 5 N.Y~3d·813, 803 N.Y.S.2d 22, 836 N~E.2d:1f44 (2005) (we reject defendant's contention that he is entitled to- a hearing .. on his claim, advanced by way of a motion to set aside his first degree assault conviction pursuant to § 440.10,. that trial counsel represented him inef.,. fectively ·by failing to communicate· a one-day· only plea offer· (of which·the people have•no re.cord)thatwas allegedly·made during an impromptu brief en~ounter }between counsel in a stairwell at 100 Centre Street, after that day's calendar call of defendant's case had concluded). · · · · · § 35:18 , Motion to vacate judgment under New York ', . Criminaii.Procedure,Law· § 440.10-Relief · · granted--Case law· .For ca,se la~ where reli~f has been :gr~~ted, see e.g., Peo~le v. G:raham, 48 ;A.D'.3d ~6,Q, 85~ N~Y.S.2d 7 (bt Dep't. 2008) (defendant w~s e~t~.tled tp· .. µew tri~l .w~ere he established _by preponde.rance of evidence ~hat Pe9ple fail~d to. turn qyer one of defendant's statem~nts. until 'aft~r. verdict, delay violB:ted People's disclosure obligation, ~cl: defendant was. prejudiced' even tho'1gh statement was not introduced ·at .trial because statement controlled material i~at defenfiarit,.~ould haye_ qsed for' imp~ach ~ent purpqses i~ c~ailenging vohi~tarine~s o~ his statements, both a,t suppressiOn·h~ariD.~ .. and at tn~l~ ... §. 35:19 Moti9n 'to· v-acate j'udglnent. tinder :New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10-Denial of .reliet...:..:c&se law · · · .. ' · · · ; · . • ' • • . : , I ; • ~ i ! • For case law in which relief has been denied, see e.g.', People v. Grubstein, 24 N.Y.3d' 500, 2 N.Y.S.3d l, 25i N.'E.3d 914 (2014).(as a ·general matter, when the· record is' sufficient to permit review of an issue on direct appeal, a defendant who either has not ap pealed his conviction or; having· appealed, has failed to raise that issue· is barred- ·fr~m:latet asserting it as a basis for· post- 277 I § 85:19 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF conviction relief); The People of th~ State of New YDnk. ,v~, Ramos, 2007· WL,2814022 (N.Y. Sup 2007). (failure of"triali-cotirt to arl:vise defendant of possible. ~deportation as consequence. of his guilty plea to charge, of attempted· .criminal possession. of a controlled substance did not warrant vacation of judgment of.conv.iction); People· u. Martinez, 40. A.D.3d: 1012, 837 1 N.;y,S.2d 221,(2d Dep~t 2007) (inasmuch as the defendant received precisely. the sentence for.whioh~he bargained, he has failed to'articulate any reason for vacating rhisjudgment of conviction pursuant to § 440.l0(1)(h)); People ,.v. ... Cuadrado, 3.7:A~D.3d 218, 830 N.Y.S.2d ·~65 (1st, Dep~t 2007), order, afl'd,\ 9· N.Y.3d.-362; 850, N.Y.S.2d 375, 880 N.E.2d 861 · (2007}· (for· pl:lrposes, of his motiOn. for postconviction relief, fact that· defen:dant's1 waiver of; indictment, "in prosecution. for fir.st-degree assault; was .ineffective because it failed to adhere· to statutory requirement that the• offense either be: charged .in t~e information or ·be; a, lesser included ~offense of a charged offense; was· not such jfuisdictional defect as_;to irequire vacatur of judg ment of convictjo~;, sufficient: facts. appeared. on the record to !have permitted adequate review, but. defendant ~unjustifiably failed to rais.e'the.issue on direct appeal);·P.eople V.• Ma~donado,,·34 A.D.3d 497, 823 N.Y.S.2d 529 (2d Dep't 2006) (postconviction motion to vacate a judgment of conviction must be denied when, although sufficient. facts' appear.-on the,, record to ·have permitted adequate review, the defendant unjustifiably failed .to raise( the. issue on his direct appeal); People ex rel. Ariola· ·vi Gneene,. 28 A.D.3d 1038, 81~ ~.Y.S.2d ~42 (3d, Dep~t 2006) (ha~~as corpu~ petiti_on,er was proced~raHy barred·J'tom ,r~isiiig cla:im ,that, procedures for determinjn'.g whether he w'as incapacitated were not 'followed dur ~ri.g Jl:roceedi~gs t~a~ led'.~ his ~9~victibns, ·wh~re·· such clailn had be~n r~sed in petitioner's.direct. appeal .fro~ his convictioris·and in' his' inbtion t~ vacate. )thejµ~g~ei;it of ctn1yiction); feop~~. q~ Hall~ 28 A.D.Sd 678~ 813 .. N~¥~S.2d 220 (2~ D~p•t 2006) (m~va:nt's claim that his· prior ~ttorn~y~ ~pou,lcthave ·;moved to .d~s~i~s irtdictinent b~~ause b'.e. dic:f .n.ot; t~c~iv~-'li. ~peedy .trial could ';have been raise'd oil. direct a i>pe#J .troni-'j µrl:gtiiedt, 1 of. co*Vic~iOil'. a11d, thus, was not proper subject' of a 'motion·to vacate'judgment•'of convictiq!-1); f~<;>P?.~ .v. f3i:~w1n, -~-4 A·~.3q ?Tl,. 807 N,.Y.~,.2d .24 (1st Dep't· 2005) ·tm·ovafit's motion·~to· ~acate:his: con~btion ·was procedurally:'batred~. where, upon--lii~(pr~vious" ttibtion to vacate, he was in position adequately to raise ground ·or issue underlying present motion but did not -do. sokPeopZ.e,:v... Sayles, 17 A.D._3d 924; .794~ N.Y$.2d ·'160-(3d, Dep~t 2005) (ineffective counsel claim; claims raised, and: rejected on ,defendant's. direct appeal .may not now form".the.~basis.for .a§ 440.10 motion); People .v.~ Keebler, 15 A:D.3d _724,, 789 .N .Y.S:.2d Jl>4 7 .. (ad Dep't ·2005), (claim that statute defendant pleaded. ,guil~y to. violating was unconstitutional; 278 I I NEW YORK § 36:20 because defendant's ·claim:d.'oes not involve factual matters be yond the ·scope of'the•record:or legalissues which could not.have been.assert~d.before the final judgment of~cohviction,. it~was not the prQpersubject of~:§ 440.10 motion).1 .- .. ·. ' ~ r : :•; 1 § 35:20 Motion to vacate:judgDient under New.York· · • ·: j :· ··~·:·Criminal Procedure:Law § 440.l~Guilty pleaS..- 1· .:caselaw .;;~· ·.: ,; · · i,: ·: ·,,, .:., · 1' • : For c~~~ iaw ~~,;·guilty. ple.~s.'f~~ ~~lat~Q~ ~Q §4:iQj,O, se~, e.g.~ People v. Vare.nga,:26. N.)7.3d ~~-9,.,~5 ~.Y,.S.3d .49, 4~· N.E.~d:9·~ (2015) (Padilla v~ ~ent~cky, 5p9!U.S. 356; J30 S~·Pt. 1473, 176.. L. Ed. 2d 284 ·(2QlQ), .. wpuJ.d not be ·applied'.retroactively i~) s·tat~ postconviption ~ollater.a~ r~vi~w ptoceepjp.g~ to judgJ?lents that ];>~came fiilaJ- before· Padilla \Vas decided; ·~e qnly g.uestion of µiw J?~Meftteo f~r ~ur ;rEi'Yi~w ,.is·: '!h~ni· a _jud~eiit. o(cq~victionr:· ap_d sentence becomes final wherfithe.aefendaiit does not take a direct appeal, :for i>.ilrPos_es 9f ~~te~~g)·\Vli~ther. ·a· ~e~ !~0 of'fede;ral constitt;ttion'al "c~inal pfoced,u~e Will aJ>ply.'in• 'tt sta~e I pQstconvic: ~oil collat~ral revie'W. proceeiµng; ~~~ b:ol~:· that 'where, as\ here, .a defe.nd~nt do:es nof take' a ~~t.ect ·~ppearfrorti the' judgment of conVictibn 'and sent~nce·, the) Jridgmerit i'b.e'c9me·s ·filial So· day~. af- ter s'ent,encing; :w4e* .the d~fenda~t'sLautomatiC nght 'to. S:ee~ direct app~llate reView;of~h~jpdgnient ezj)it~~; he;re, the§ 440.10 irtbvant's ··conviction became final before~ J:>adilla \\'as decided; relief derued); People v. 'Baret, 23 'N.Y.3d ·777, '992 N.Y.S.2d 738, 16 N.~E.3d'l216 (201~)' (the U.S. 'S~~re~e 9o\¥ hel4 in 'Padilla v~ Kentucky, 559 U.S. 856, 13Q $.Ct 1473;·17& L .. Ed. ~cl 284' (2010)~ that the Sixth· Am'.endmen~ ··requires ·Crlniinal defense counsel to adVis~. ~heir 'ifoncitizen clients' about the ·iisk. 'Of deportatiOn arisl in~ from: a 'gwlty piea;: i~at ·colirt rsubs'equently· held "in~ Qhi:ti~i v. "U.S;~· 1'33 S. ·Ct. '1103;· '185 L. ~d~ 2d 149. (20.13),-that Padilla did not apply retroactively' iii; federhl. collateral review;· ilie .i~sue in this ~ppeal __is w:beth~r, .pur_s~ant to fede!"al or. _state .retroa~~.iv':' ity principles~ fadilla)i~nethe1~ss .. apP.Ues retr~~ctive1y in state court postconVictiorl. proceedihgs; we:· lio1d that :it ·does not); People v. Seeber, 94 A.D.3d 1335, 94SN:Y.S.2d 282 (Sd~·Dep't 2012) (pur suant to; CPL'§ 440~10(l)(b), a judgmerit'·of conviction. may ;be vacated. upon. the ground that. it was procured by duress, rmisI."ep resentation·' or fraud ron the ~part of the ccrurt~ or a prosecutrir,·or ·a person. acting for 'or. in- behalf of1 a·· court or a· prosecutor; )here~ relief granted due ,to misconduct ·:by·forensic. scientist, :employed by state.police); People.·v. Peque,..22N.y;.3d168~· 980.N.Y.S.2d ·2so, ·3 N.E.3d ,617:'.(2013) (where ~a defendant·ihas no practical ability !to:obj~ct to an error: in a plea :allocution which is·clear from the face of the recordt .preserv.ation is not required); People v~ Maracle; 19 NJY.3d925, _95Q.N.Y.S.2dA98, ·973 N~·E~d-1272 279 § 35:20 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF (2012) (plea colloquy during which defendant waived her right to. appeal her larceny '.and forgery conviction failed to· establish that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived her right to appeal the severity of her sentence, where trial court, at most, apprised defendant that if she did not pay one half of the restitution she owed by sentencing, there would be. no promise as to her sentence and that she and that she would not- be able to withdraw her ·plea, but made no mention of defendant not being ·.able·:. to appeal the harshness of her sentence; to the extent that defendant sought to advance an ineffective assistance· of counsel clmm. or to challenge the voluntari1).ess .of her plea on matters outside th~ record, she co:nld. do so by affidavit in support of a motion to vacate); People. v·. Parma, 8 N.Y.3d 654, 836· N.Y.S.2d 824, 870 N.E.2d 142 (2007) (ineffective counsel claim; generally, a defenaant ·:who adµiits 1 guilt in' open court may not. later s~elt review of.claims relating to the·deprivatipn of'rights :that tO'ok place pefore the plea was entere'd; clairµs based on jurisdictional matters, such .~S ~ insUfficient accusatpry in~tnµnent, or rights pf a constitutional .dimens.ic;m. that, go to the v.ery_ .heart of the pro ces~ s,uch as tlie constitutio1wl tight to a sp~edy trial, the pro.tee.: tion against doublej~Qpardyor a defendant'~ competency to s·tand trial will survive a defendant's guilty. plea; here, by p1eading guilty, movant waived'. his statute of limitations cl~); People l.!~ Roys,ter, 40 A.:Q.3d 885, 83~ N.Y.S.2~ 732 (2d Dep't 2007) (th.~ medical evidence submitted· by the defendant in support.of her postjud~e~t motion was insufficie~t to call .into. question t~e voluntary.nature of her decision to plead guilty); People v. Lahon, .17 A.:0.34 778, 793 N.Y.S.2d 238. (3d .Dep't 2005) (as· for ;defen dant's ·,clai~. of ,newly. qiscov~~ed. eyiderice, inasmuch as vacatur of.a judgmerit of convictio;n on this ·ground is expressly conditioned upon the existence of a verdict of guilt: after· trial, defendant's guilty plea ·pr,eclud~s relief on this ground.). § ,35:21 Motion t~ vacate judgment ,under. ~ew :York CriminaI Procedure Law §.440.10-Ineffective assistance counsel~Case law . . • of I A• :Fpr case :law on. ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised i~ § 440.10 proceedings, see e.g., People v. Gross, 26,N.Y.3d 689, 27 N.Y.S.3d. 459, 47 N~E.3d 738 (2016) (on. a NN.. Crim.· Proc. Law§ 440.10 motion pursuant to subdivision (l)(h), the burden is on the defendant to ·demonstrate· that the judgment·was obtained in violation of a right .of the defendant und~r the constitution of this state or of the United,States; on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Cons·titution, a· defendant must demonstrate that (1) his or her attorney committed· errors so egregious that. he or she did not 280 NEwYoRK ,. § 35:21 function as counsel within the.meaning of the United.States Con stitution, and (2) that counsel's· deficient' performance. actually prejudiced the defendant; New York's constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel is met when the ·evidence,. the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time: of the ·representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation;· trial counsel was· not inef fective, in prosecution. for first-degree. course of ·sexual. conduct against a child and endangering the welfare1of a '.child, ,in. failing to. call expert Witness who· could testify that absence; of physical evidence. could .indicate that victim was. -never' anally-.,raped by defendant; although defe:q.dant pointed. to three studies which al~ 1 legedly supported his claim that victim's allegations .. of.painful anal rape should- have :result~d in lasting physical: trauma, which could be detected some years after last allegation of aiial. penetra-· tion,- he failed to provide: a proper foundation for admission of those studies· in form .of an ~ffidavit. by a mediaal expert explain ing. conclusions of studies Oi"i how those conclusions supported his contentions,-and in any:cas.~,, defense .. counsel arti~ulated ·argu: ably legitimate reasons for ·not calling an expert Witness); ·People v. Grubstein·, .24 N.Y.3d 500~ ~2 N.Y~S.3d 1, 25 N.E.Bd 914. (2014) (defendant· claiming he .was deprived·ofhis right to· eounselwhen he pleaded guilty· pro se wasj not· barred from raising: that claim in a motion to ·vacate· the judgment. by .his failure to raise it on direct ·appeal; defendant's failure to raise: issue on a. ~ect ·appeal was justified .by his claim ilhat: an interference with his· right to counsel impaired his· ability to• pursue appellate relief); People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, ·980. N.Y.R2d 280,-. 3 N.E.3d 617 (2013) (where a defendant's ·complaint. about. counsel is· predicated on factors such: as counsel's strategy, advice or: preparation that do not appear on the .face· of the record,· the defendant must! raise -his or her- claim via: a motion to vacatejudgment);:People·.v. Towns• ley; 20 N.Y.3d _29·4,-.959_ N.Y.S.2d 94; 982--N.E.2d.1227 (2012), cert. denied,: 133 S. Ct. 1829,: 185 L. Ed. 2d 840· (2013) (constitu tional requirement .of effective~ assistance of counsel is met where the attorney provided meaningful representation; appellate lawyers have latitude :in deciding which· points to advance and need· not: brief or ·argue every. issue·that may have merit; in reviewing the. performance of appellate counsel, the minimum standard of .performance required .is ·a very: tolerant one; mere fact .that defendant's trial :counsel met with leader of. defendant'_s gang, and that jury. knew of that meeting via prosecutor's questioning.about that· meeting at murder trial, .did not make it either 'necessary. or ·appropriate for\ trial counsel to testify, precluding defendant's claim that appellate counsel was ineffec tive for .failing to raise so-called ,"advocate-witness problem" 281 §·35:21 . STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF regarding trial cotinsel, where prosecutor brought out meeting to show· that· gang leader; ·whom· defense portrayed: as missing Wit ness,· :was not .. wholly·in\People's .control, .which·was· legitim:ate, though :peripheral, .point. that trial counsel's testimony could not have refuted); People v. Syville, .15 N.Y.3d 391; 912'N.Y.S~2d 477, 938 N.E.2d: 910 (2010) (where ian attorney has: failed to comply with a.timely request for the filing of·a· notice·: of appeal ah~ the defendant. ·alleges that the omission!. could not··reasonably have been: discovered within the one-year period,. N~Y... Criin.· Proc. Law § 440.10 'prov.ides no. statutory ·avenue'. for relief for this··category Qf ineffective .assistance· of counsel. Clailns , because} it "aHows defendants· 'tO ·challenge. the validity ,of ;judgments of conviction hot circumstanc·~s' that ·occur ;after· 'ConviCtfon; if the relief a def0ndantJis;.seekiing· is· a :direct appeal; that ·relief is .not within the cadz:e· of.remedies atrial-level.court m~y,graiit under§ 440.10; that .is: not :to say-that ·§. 440.10· is. of:no ,,~tility in this situatiOn because a· defendant might. secure.' significant. underlying relief in such. a motion; although a §· 440.'10 motion cannot result:.-.in permissfon to· .file a· late notice of .appeal, a defendant-. can secure the same· relief as .could ·be. achieved '.through.~a· successful appeal if the· challenge. to .the conviction fits within· .<>ne ·of the. permis- sible· claims in.§ 440.lO;·defendant·is barred f.roin·raising ·a claim in a'.§ 44()~ 10 .proceeding that~buld have been raised·:on direct ap peal only if.there :was an ·~'unjus~abl~ failure". to raise.the issue on qirect· appeal;: if- a defendant wa$ :prevented 'from 'pursuing· his direct ·appeal.:solely .due to• ·his· attorney's· noncompliance wjth a request tQi file· a notice·:of appeal,. the failure ~.to raise. the issue in question ·on direct·appealwotild lie justifiable); People· v; -Ozuna·,. 7 N~Y.3d ·.913;-628 N.Y~S\2d. 275;·; 861 -N~E.2d ...90 (2006) (ineffective counsel claim; in this· state~ iwithi. respect 'to_. a .claim: of ineffective assistance of. couilsel:,.- the; prejudice· co·mponent focuses on the fairness of\ the .process.·; as ' aj whole 'rather than its particular impact on: th$ :outcome, of. the. case; movant .failed. to. establish threshold issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, as would war rant hearing on ·his .motion: to ·vacate. contempt conviction, based on counsel's .failure to investigate or call as a wit11:es~ defendant's father, who wowd allegedlyihave;eorroborated movant's testimony that movant. telephoned .complainant,. in violation of. protection· order,.at her!.owhrequest; mbvap.t's motion papers did·not contain sworn allegations· supstantiating the :essential facts, and .movant neither· submitted an1 affidavit from ·his· father stating that he would have corroborated movant's testimO.P.Y· nor ;'explai~ed, ~s failtire to.do so); .People· v .. Marcial, ~4~LAD.3d 1308~ 8~7 N.:Y~s ..24 815;(4th Dep't 2007) (prudence dictates·that rather.than on direct appeal the issue of ineffective assistance o( counsel be ~aised in. a posttrial application where ·a thorough evaluation of each claim 282 NEWYORK ' : .. §:35:22 based on a·complete ·record can·be.made); People v. Johnson, 41 A.D.3d ·1284,: 837 N~Y.S.2d· 810. (4th Dep't .2007) (ineffective counsel claim; faih:U"e to advise a ,defendant· of a collateral co~e quence ·.of· a guilty plea does· not. constitute. ineffective assistance of. counsel; deportation is. a collateral .consequence of conviction); People v;·-BonelU;;·4l:A.D.3d 1972,·837;N.Y.S .. 2d 434. (3d Dep't 2007:) (defenda:nt's,t::laims Tegarding counsel's· alleged deficiencies ~n1 investigating defendant's! case· were more: properly. the subject of a§ 440.10 postconviction·motion~ rather than direct-.appeal); People v. Faulkner, 40-A.n~ad 1207·, 836.N.Y.. S.2d·32l (3d.Dep't .2007) .(claim that, movant·, received :ineffectiv.e.. assistance. of counsel when ·pleadi.ng·:guilty);~People ·v. Goldberg, 8-3 A~D.Sd 1018, 823~N~Y.S.2d!492 (2d Elep't 2006) (ineffective counsel claini; .to.,·:prevail on·· a claim !of. ineffective· assistance 0£ counsel based upon thei defense counsersi failure to advise; the defe.ridartt With respect to :an o:ffer·of·a plea.agreemeilt;·a defendant must demon~ strate ~~at a· plea offer ·wa~ ·made,. that defense cou~sel failed to inform-hint or her· of that' offer, and that ·he or she would have been willing to accept the o~~r;· evidentiaty hearing ordered).' : l \; • ' , •I . § 85:22 ··Motion to·vaca~ejudgment under:New.York· · · · ' Criminal Pr~c~du.re.Law § 440.l~Newly, · · . discovered evidence-Case ta:w . ' : . ·· .... · . /.For ,~a~e law on newly, ~~cpye~e(fevidence <::lafm$-in § 44Q.i9 pro~e~..4ings, ·s~~ e.g., P~pp:Z~); ..' Garrett, 23 N~¥.3d~ &78, 1~94 N.Y.S.24 22,; 18 N.E.3d 722 ~~'0~4) .(people .had no constructive lqlo~l~~ge Qf qivil aijeg~tjo~' agaµist det~ctiv~, as, related' to'his co~cJ.uct)p. separate qriminal ~vestig~tion, an~ t~lis detective's knqwledge of hjs own ~lege~ nµt;1co~duct and c~yil ·actio:p ag~nst · ~.could .no~ b~. iinputed ·to People_, ~or .Brady ·purposes, ·predti<;l~ ~ng, ~efep.~ant's :~gum~nt, in his· .Diotio.n, t~· vacate, th.at People'~ f~,ilur~ to: disclc>se ·tho·se ~llega~ion~ a.s ·,iiµpeachmerit evidE:m~e vi()lated Br~_dy ~n hls murder prpse'c~~tfo~;: ciYil alleg~tio~s. did nc;>t. iµise. QU~ ·or d,eteqtiye:s .~ye~µgati9_~_ .°.f defeD:~~t~s ·'~a~~ ,Qr; :;tiW actions 'i1!3, pai;t of pi:osecu~~on's .team,-no~ w:ere. theyldjrectly r~ lated to defendant's' murder prosecuffon,' but inS,t~a,d .concetjle<;l detective's alleged misconduct in unrelated criminal case); 1People v. Ortega., 40 4.n ..a4 .~94, .8,p6, N;;V~S.~d i44 (1st DeP.'F 2007)__ (in his § 440.10 motion;."~nd. oii ij.ppeat, .. def.eP.da~~ asse~$ that evi dence that both ·of the 'police· officers·who.testified·athis suppres sion hearing made false statements in other cases is· highly valu able impeachment material, .to~which he ·was 'entitled under BFady v~ Maryland;:373·U~S. 83, 88 SJ'Ct. 1194, lO:L. Ed. 2d.215.(1963), and Giglio. v. U.S.,.405, u~s .. 150, ·92 S.•Cti 763, 31 L.·Ed; 2d 104 (1972); however; it.is .clear that the District· Attorney did· not have sub$tantiated evi~ence-regarding .any misconduct. commit!" 283 ·§ 85:22 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF ted by these officers in unrelated cases until, at the earliest, 1994, which was after defendant's 1993 plea of guilty and scheduled sentencing; the People are not required, pursuant .to Brady. or Giglio, to disclose·.to a defendant exculpatory informa tion to which they·have neither actual or imputed possession nor any. kind of access; the newly discovered. evidence theory under §.440.lO(g) applies only to convictions· after trial);. People v. Wong, 11 A.D.3d 724, 784 N.Y.S.2d 158 (3d Dep't 2004) (claim.of newly discovered evidence of innocence consisting of recantation testimony :of .one witness and statements of other witnesses; pur suant to § 440.lO(l)(g), the· court in .which judgment has been entered may vacate the judgment on the ground that new evi dence has been discovered since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial, which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence 9n his part and which is of such. character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at. the .trial the verdict would have b~en more favorable to. the, defendant,. provided. that a motion.based upon.such ground must be made with due dili gence after the discovery of such alleged new evidence; consider ation of recantatioD:.eviiience involves the following Jactors: (1) the inherent. :believability. of the ~ubstance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demean~r both at .trial and ,at the ev identiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence co~oborating the trial testimony; (4). the reasons offered for both the trial testimony and the· recantation; (5) the importance of facts established' at trial as reaffirmed in the recantation; and (6) the relationship.·be tween the witness and defendant as related to a motive to 'lie; havihg determined that sufficient newly discovered· eVidence {ex ists ·to support the.motion, we turn to an analysis of the character of this: evidence to determine if it creates a probability :that tbe verdict· would have been more favorable to defendant had it been received at trial; w~ conclud~ that defendant has met his burden of proof and est~blished by a preponderance. of' the· ~vidence t~at, had.this newly'discovered evidence.been received at trial, a prob abi~ity exists that the verdict' would h~ve been more fa~orable to him;· relief gr~nt~d). · · . . · · §'35:23 ·. Motion to set aside· sentence nnder New York · Criminal ~~cedure 'Law·§ 440.20. . . The motion to set aside sentence remedy;:authorized by N ..Y. Crim. Proc. Law:'§ 440.20, is· another.New York postconviction remedy. ·Like the '§440.10 remedy, the §'440.:20 remedy: is procedurally implemented by N.Y;· Crim. Proc. Law § 440.30. :: When the sentence, as opposed tO the•conviction, is subjected to collateral attack, the pr.oper ·postconviction ·remedy in New York 284 NEwYoRK §.35:27 is not the motion to vacate judgment remedy authorized by N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law.§ 440.10, but instead the motion to set aside sentence remedy authorized by.N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law§ 440.20, enacted into law in 1970 .. The § 440.20 re:µiedy is in the nature. of coram no bis, available in. the sentencing court. § 35:24 ·.Motion.to set aside sentence under New York Crim\nal Procedure Law § 440~20-Filing :: . A§ 440.20. application for ~elief, entitled "Motion to set~ aside "S~n~enc~," may be .filed at. any tim_e. N.)".: Crjm. Proc .. Law § 440 .. 20(1) (at_ any tiµle after entry .of a judgnu~nt,. court in.the judgment w~s .enter~d may upon motion of the·qefendant set aside ~he sentence) .. Se~, e.g., People v. Sparber, 10 N.Y.3d 4:57, 85~ ~ ..Y.S.2d 582, 889 N.~ .. 2d 459 (2008) -(d~fendants could move at any time for resentenci.J;ig up.der .QPL 440.20(1)). ,. . I' ' § 3,(>:25 :Motion to set aside sentence under New York · Criminal Procedure Law § 440.20-Grounds for relief · · · · ··· ·In a~ proceeding und~r § 440.20, the grounds for relief are that the sentence 'is "unauthorized, illegally imposed, or otherwise in valid as a matter oflaw." N~Y. Crim .. ·Proc. Law§ 440~20(1); Under a 1995 statutory amendment,. where the judgment includes a sentence of death, the .court may also .set aside the· sentence upon any of the grounds set forth in .paragraphs (b); (c), (f),- (g), or (h) of N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.10(1)~ . § '35:26 .·Motion to set aside sentence und~r New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.2~Denial of claims Under ·N.Y. Crim.J?"oc. LS:~·§ 440~20(2), relief m~st be .denied if the claim raised 'was previously determined on the merits on direct appeal, unless there has ·been a retroactive change of law. Moreover, under § 4~0.20.(3) relief ~aY.. be <;lenied if .the .elaim raised wa~ .preyjoµsly determined on the inerit~ in a prior judicial proceeding (other _than a .direct appeal) i_n this state, unless there has been .a 'retroactive change'. "of law' .or unless the court 'in the interest of justice and for gc;>oq ~~use_ shown gr~nts. the motion. in its discretfon. , · ·. .· · ·. · · , · § 35:27 Motion to ·set :~~ide seritence:Wider New York ·· : Criln.in~ Pro('edure Law §·44o.~~Jlight to' · counsel -.~ ·.. ·· · · . ~. •\ ' ,•;. ; ' I • Under N.Y .. Jud. Law § 35-b(l), (2), (12), indigent persons 285 § 35:27 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF sentenced.:to death are. statutorily entitled to. 1appointment of counsel with respect to an initial·§ 440,20 motion~~ Thus, there ;is a right to counsel ·in_§ 440_.20 ·proc~~dings in death sentence cases~ but not in noncapital cases. · · · · · · § 35:28 Motion to set aside sentence under New York " : ·Crinµnal Procedure ·~a~~§ 440.?o.;...Appe&ls · :. · :. l. , ' I ', . , 4 J' , • ~ _" • • ~- ' • ~ : • .. ~ J ·_ ; :. ...,_ In a death sentence case, the qefendant may appeal 'as of right to the:NewJ York: Court bf Appeals a1f order d~nYing a-1 §;'440.20 motion to set aside sentence. N.Y:. Critn. Proc~ Law § 450.70(3); In a ·non.capital case, the defend8.ht may appeal' an ·order· deJlYjng a § 440~20 '.motion to set aside sente~ce to· ~n :interniediat~ ~ppel late co·µrt' (the Appellate _DJvision of the New''York. S.upre:q>.e Court), ·provided'. that under N.Y~ ·Crfin·.· Prac·.· Law·§ 460.15 acer tificate granting ·10ave ·to appeal· is· issued. ·'N.Y. Crim. ·Proc> Law § 450.15(2). In a death sentence case, the people may appeal as of right ~o the ·New York.Court of·-~ppeals from ·an ·order granting a defendant's'§ 440.20 motion to;· set aside sentence .. 'N·.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 450.80(2). In a noncapital case, the· people may ap pe_al a~ pf_ right'. to ~n ~nt~rmediS;te; appellate court .(the. Appe~late D~vision of:tJle New Xork 81:1Pl'~me C.Qu.r_t) f:J:om. an or~er_gr~ti.J;tg ~ defend~t's: _§ 440.2Q moti~n ... N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law lJ50.. 20(6)._, 1 An app.eal .as of J!ight to·:an intermediate; appellate co:urtf or directly to,the New·York Court of Appeals-is taken by filinga,no tice of appeal in the :cop.v4Jting. cour.t within 30.. .c;lays: after judgment. N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law.·§ 460.ld(l)(a). Applications for .a certificate granting leave to appeal to intermediate appellate court are made .in. -accordance withe the. :requirements set for.th. in N.Y. Crim. Proc:4 Law § .460.15. · . -~ .. § 35:29 Motion to set.aside sentence under New York ··; · . · · · · Criininal Proced~e,La'*~·§ 440.2~Text ". · · ; · ·~ ' .' , ~ • ,. i" • • _- £ ·' '-- ~ , ·• ,' ·.. : • '. ..~ , ..- . • r ~- ; ••: i . . I ; . N.Y.; Crim.!Proo.;·_Law §.440.20 provides:f: ·~ ,: : . r'. I :'1 . · § :440.20. 'Moti~n· to.-set aside sentenc~; by defendant' ! ... :_ t·· · t. .At _ti'nytinie ifte~ the' entrj ofa )udgme~t,, tqe ·coiirt' ih .· wh~ch t;Iie j1id~~ent wB:s· ..en~ere~ ·~~y, ppon:;¢ott<)~' of th~ ~~ .d~fe~d~~~~ set .as.~~~ th~, s~Jit~n;c~.:-1;.po~th~ gi:~un~ ~atJ~--~t1,~ unauthonzed, illegally imposed or· otherwise invalid·~~· a mat.:. ter of law. Where the judgment includes a sentence· of deatli~ Qf, the po~.rt. may al~o.}e~. ~~~~~-' the;fs~.nt~n~e, U,:PQ~. ~ny .. 1 ~b~ ground$· set fQrth·1:µ .par~~~pli (b); (c), tf),;(g), or (h) of subd1vi~ sion o·n~ ·of sectiOn: 440.10' a·s ajlpliedJ'to a ·se'par~t~ ~:entencing proceeding under section 400.27, provided, howevet:that to the extent the ground or grounds asserted.i.Iiclude one~or more of 286 I I NEW: YORK § 36:29 the. aforesaid paragraphs: of;subdivision~ene of·section 440·~10, the court must also apply subdivisions. two and three': of section 440.10, other than.p~a~aph.(d) of_su~division t~~pf_such.sec- . :; ti~ri, :i,h :g.e_~rmfuiiigthe. m~tion.· ~n.. ~~e. event-th~·:co1µ·f ~nters _an o~der. granting·~ iµotion. tc;> ~et; asid~ &· ~enten~e _of d~ath µnder ·this section,; '.the. court· .m..ust either dire~ .a I;l~iW. sentenc~ ·dng. proceeding: in.,accordance .with sectipn 400~27 or, to the extent that.the defendant· cannot he resentenced to death ·con- . · · sistent with .the 'laws .of tliis. state. or the!~constitution of this · . state or of the United States; :re.sentence; the· defendant· to_ life ; . iinprisonnient without parble·or"to a~ s:enfence· of'imprisomD.ent •~ ·for the :cla'ss iA-I felony of murder: ill th~ first' degre~ other· thaii ~ ·aen.terice 9f li:f~- .i~priso~~ilt: wi~~out parQle.: ~pon: ··gr_~~#ng 1 the motion upoiJ. .an.Y of ~he; ~~>unds.:$~t·"fO~\l.in.th~.·a!oresmC;I p~~agrapµ~ o~ sub(Uyision-·o#e ·..of s~ctio~: 4'40~1,0 ·~,rid s·~ttillg '· aajde ..t~~ sentenc~, iji~ <;~~- ~usi:aft'ord th~. peop~e. a·.~e~~mn~ able. petj.od. of time,. which sh~ll. not. ~e -~ss thiµi ten; days,. to deter~ine :w,hether to .ta:ke: an appe.al fr()D) ·the: order\ $etting asWe .. the se_ntence of dea:th. The taking of _an appe.al,_by the ' people. stays -the effectivene$s pf that~portion 0£ the' court's or~ der.:that.·directs a new sentencing proceeding...... ; : . 2. Notwithstanding' the provisions ofsubdivisiOn;one/ the : court:must dehy such a-~otlon wh~n the·gr~µnclor~iss~e-rai~ed thereupon was preViously ·'determinE!d on tl;te merits .·µpoll· an appeal from' the ju~gment or ·_sen ten¢~, µtj.less. si,;n~e th~ -9lri~. of such·appellate determinf;l~on there;'has, be~ri a·retro_acttvely ef- fective change in the law controlling' such issue. -~ . . : ' : . : ' 6 0 • :, • ' ' : } • .: • •• ~ ;, t • • \ - i { • ' ~ ·:'' ~ ,' ,: i _ ·, • ~ 'r.~ ,4 f • , 3. Notwithst.an.~i:qg ,th~~ protjs~ons'. of ~µ.bcliyis~~n .one, .th~ _cqw,t m,ay_ den.y s~ch a ,motion. wne~ $~:group.cl or Jssue raised. .thereupop..;was p:revio~sly det~rm.ined on. the:merits upon.a ...prior Jnotion or 1pr9ceeding. hi; a court of this state, othe:r; than : ~an .appeal- from the judgment, or. up.on a prior motion: .or .proceeding in a federal' court, unless- since· the. time of such. de- . termination. there ·has been a ·retroactively effective change in · the law controlling suchiissue. Despite. such determination, ·_, howevetfthe :court in the interest of justice· ·and for good cause shown, 1may·in its discretion grant ·the.motion if it 18 otherwise meritorious. ' ' :...... '. ::i~ : An order' set.ting, ~~id~ E(S~nterice. pw:suant to thfs section :a~ee1· p.q;\affecr$.~ v{lliditY; ~r .status· o~ the_ .under~ying :c~nvic~ .. tiori, .·and 'after.-~iiteri~g such an order tlie court.must reseritence :: .. 'th~· defe11~~nt i.~ _accord~P.e. ~t~ the law... . . : : . . .· . · .',· , :,! 287 § 35:30. STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF §. 35:30 Motion to set· aside· sentence ·under New York Criminal Procedure.Law§ 440.20-Case law For c~se law on N.Y. Crim. Proc.' Law·§· 440.20; see~·e.g., People v. M~tc.hell, 15 N.Y.3d 93, 905 N.Y.S.2d 115, ·931 N.E.2d 84 (2010) (transfer· of defendant's'. probation .supervision from county in which he was sentenced to county in which he resided did not divest sentencing court of jurisdiction · over· defendant's subse quent motion to vacate judgment and set aside sentence); People v. Bautista, 7 N.Y.3d 838, 823 N.Y.S.2d 754, 857 N.E.2d 49 (2006) _ (orders denying §-440.20 motions to set aside .sentences are ap pe~labl~. by permission); People~ v. De.-cµitt, 52 A.D.3d 1184, 861 N.Y.$.2d 870 (4th Dep't 2008) .(defendant's failur.e to. obtain permissio~ tp appe.al the denial 'oflµs motion to set aside sentence required dismis~a~ of Pis.appeal);. People v. Lopez,, 51A.D.3d1210, 858 N.Y.S.2d 4~5. (3d Dep't 2008) (defendant's claim that he should have ;beeri allowed to ·withdraw his"guilty: plea"based on his sentence exceeding the term the· :People agreed tO recommend under the plea. agreement was unpreserved for review where he fa~led to -move• to withdraw his guilty plea or vacate judgment, even·though he did move· to vacate his sentence); People~· Lisle Cannon, 31 A.D.3d 467, 820 N.Y.S;2d 280 (2d Dep't 2006) (while a defendant's certification· as a sex offender under Sex Offender Registration 1\ct is. part of the judgment of c:onviction, .it is not part of the sentence; thus, ~he relief sought by the. defendant was not available to hiin under.§ 440.2.0(1), which only authorizes a ·motion to set aside a sentence); People.' v. Carpenter, 19 A.D.3d 730, .. 796 N .. Y.R.2d. 730 (3d Dep't 2005) ·(after a defendant has beguri. serving a ·sentenc~' ofincarceration, a court has the power to correct an illegal ~enterice or· a ·sentence 'that was imposed based on an ina:dvettent error or misstatement· that creates an ambiguity in the record; a court may not; however, alter·a validly imposed·sentence once it is being served; where there are sever able parts of an aggregate sentence, only those parts of the sentence that are invalid may be modified, ·and the valid parts of the sentence must be allowed to stand); People v. Rodriguez, 27 A.D.3d 585, 811 ·N.Y.S.-2d 752 .(2d Dep't 2006) (sentencing court has the inherent power to ·correct.its own error in connection with imposing a sentence); People v. Pratt, 23 AD.3d 770, 803 N.Y.$.2d 778 (3d Dep't 2005) (County Court properly denied defendant's postconviction § 440.20 motion to set aside his sentence, given defendant's .oppotj;~nity to challenge iegality of his sentence ·on direct appeal and avajfability of facts an,d infor mation relevant ,to issu,e at th~t time);' Peopl~ v. 'O'F!,a~lon, 13 A.D.3d 718, 785 N.Y.S.2d 795 (3d Dep't · 2004) ·(insofar as defendant's challenge is to"the amount; of·restitution awarded, and not to whether the award was unauthorized, illegally 288 NEW YORK § 35:32 imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter ofi law, a· motion pursu ant to § 440.20 is not the appropriate remedy); People v. ·Boyce, 12 A.D.3d 728, 783 N.Y~S~2d 722 (3d Dep't 2004) ·(defendant moved pursuant to· § 440.20 to set aside his sentence on the basis that county court did not advise· him at the time of his plea that he ·was subject to a mandatory period ·of postrelease supervision; where a court fails to advise a defendant of the mandatory period of postrelease supervision ·prior to. the entry. of a guilty plea, we have held that defendant's .sentence must be vacated to afford him or her the opportunity to withdraw a plea; a defendant who was not informed of the postrelease supervision· requirement is not entitled to modification of'the sentence to·eliminate or reduce . the postrelease supe:rvision requirement; tips case deals with a motion pursuant to § 440.20, which authorizes a court to ·set aside a sentence· where the sentence was unauthorized., illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law;· the .county court did not, ·nor do we, find any such infirmity. -with ·the original sentence; at best,. the county court's reduction of. the period of postr~le~se supervision is due to its beUef that the s~ntence was exces~iy~, ~d §;440... 20 does n9t e~compass. excef?sive sentence claims, wh~ch m_.U:St be raised on dire.ct· appeal; as the .original sent~~ce.w~s legal, def~ndS;nt~s· motion shoq.ld hav~ been.deriied); People v. Gµ,rrison, 9 A.D.3d 436,_780 N.Y.S.2d 170 (2d.Dep~t 2004). (convicting_ court's failure .to have defendant .prod.uc~d at pr()ceeding a~ whl:ch it amended sentence, after it d~itermi~~4 that original sentencEl under ple~ ~g~eemeD:t was . unla'Yfu~, viol~ted defendant's. statutory right.. to be present, a~ tim~: qf .s~.ntence; order d~.mying ,§ 4':J:0.20 mo;tion. is reverse~l). §. 35:$.1 .. Wrlt of hab~as. _corpus und~r N~~ York Civil. , . . c Practic~ ~a~ and :6ules ~§ 7001 to 7012 . . .. The: writ ofhabeas corpus is another New York postconviction remedy. · The yvrit of habeas corpus is statutorily authorized in New York by Article 70 ("Habeas C()rp'us")' ·of Chapter 8 ("Of" the Consolidated~ Laws"). of' the Civil Practfoe Law and Rules of McKin~~y's Consolidated 1'aws of New Y()rk Annotated (N.Y. Ci~. Pra~. Law & :Rules § 79,01 through §. 7012)~ § 35:32 Writ of habeas corpus under.~ew:Y~rk Chril .. ,, .. . , Practice Law and Rules.§§ 7001 to 7012-Use to : _ correct jurisdic~fonal err~rs, ... i . Traditionally, in New York the writ of habeas corpus has; with respect to attacks on· convictions and sentences, been an avail able. remedy only to redress jurisdictional errors, and 'violations 289 §.35:32 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF of constitutional or fUndamental rights. have. generally not been regarded as erro~s going to. the jurisdiction of the .court. See, e.g., People.ex··rel. Brunson;v. Lempke, 20 .Misc. 3d 316,. 862 N.:Y.S.,2d 745, (S,up 2008) (Oepart;ment of Corrections acteq in.. excess of its jurjsdi.ction 'by h~posi.ng post-;rel~ase supervision period, since that WR$ 1 ajudi~j.al function t4at.could only .be:don~.by sentencing judg~). . . . .,...... '· .. . . . , .· .. · The traditional· view also holds· that that habeas corpus ~ay not be.used.to·redress violations·ofconstitutional rights resulting in .a conviction ·or sentence.· However, there ·are New ~York deci sions- holding that: postconyiction. habeas .corpus may be used· in some circumstances to. review :convictions obtained in violation of constitutional rights~ r: . ' 0 # J; I ( §!35:33. Writ 0£ habeas corp.us :under New York Civil . Practice Law and Rules §§ 7001 to: 7012-Current , , j , restrictions. on use· to reriew ~convictions or ·. . , ... ~ntences .. : - :. · ,.,, .. ~ At' 1present, the New York courts are: reluctant to permit the broad use of habeas corpus {or the reView of criminal. convictions o~ ~erite:rices, whether the· habaas .review:. i's spught :on ·constitu tional o~ jtirl~dictional ·grounds. 'Therefore; the· validity of convi¢ tions or sentences may be' challenged by ~eans of a 'direct appeal or by means of the § 440.10 and the § 440.20 posteonviction ·rerti ecije·s;· bu'.t- not, except 'in extrEic;>rdinaey 'circuinsta:nces~ by. me~s ._of'the:wtit of habeas·corpus~·Moreover, the New York rule that liabeas corpus is unavailable unless the petitioiler,: in addition to having a vali:d· claim/is' ·en~itled' to immediate release from custody, increas~s th~ unlikelihood that habeas CO!pus m~y. be used successfulJy·~o·~attack ·a convictitiil or sentence. ·Under limited circumstances; ·however,· pO'stconvietion··habeas corpus n:iaybe·'1$ed in:New York.to review claims that the conviction or sentence was 'obtained in violation of a constitutional right. . . §.35:34. 'Writ ~t;iu~beas corl>us. unJle~ '.NeWi Yc;>;rk Pivil, .'.: ... .": .. - Pr~ct~ce LAW .~d-Rules §* 7-001 ~c;> .701~~~se.l~~ - For case -law· on postc~nvictiori. ·hab~as corpus,: see, ~.g~; Pebp{e ex rel. Bourlaye T. · v. Connolly; ·25, N.Y.3d.'1054, .. 33·N.E'l3d'1287 (2015) (petjtioner's habeas petition was rendered moot as he was being hel& pu~suant to order; :iitnder Mental: \Hygiene· Law·, establishing probable cause to believe 'h~ w~s ·sex' offender requir ing civil management, and·'his· initial attest ·and detention no lon ger. served a$ authority for his. continuing confinement);.Peopl~ ex rel. Richardson-~. Boucaud, 15 N.Y.3d 916, 913 N.Y.S.2d 640, 939 l\i.E.2d>806 (2010),(petitiOner.released on parole is no longer 29Q NEW.YORK. § 815:34 restrained· to such a degree a:s. to. entitle him to the, extraordinary writ .of habeas corpus); People ex. rel .. Spaulding v. Napoli, 50 A.D~3d 1330,:857 N~Y.S.2d 258 (3d Dep't 2008) (issues,presented by petitioner·that could have been raised.on direct.appeal or in a motion pwsuant to CPL: article~ 440 .are ·not ·proper. subjects .of a babe.as corpus proceeding); People ex rel. Fun~hes. v.,. Walsh; 48 A.D1.3d.·.849, 851 N.Y.S.2d 666 (3d Dep't, 200,8) (defendant precluded from raising, on habeas p·etition, ~laims based(upon~al leged errors. before.grand j~ and at trial, where petitioner .could. have raised. thos_e issues :on direct· appeal or in collateral motion, and :none. of petitioner's, claim~, ·evQn Jf ro.eritorious, woµld 1have entitleq.,hiin. to immediate -release from. prison); People. ex. rel. Washington v.. Walsh,.43 A.D.3d·l217, .84tN.Y~S..2d··7l3 (3d D~p't 2007) (petitioner's allegations ·Of ineft'ectiye_ assistance of counsel, prosecqtorial misconductr evidentiary -errors. at: trial, wrongful deprivation oftranscripts, and the· imposition: of an- improper and unconstitutional ·sent~nce,-~were.·imprQper subjects: of. state: ha'.'" be~s. co;rpus .prpceeding); feople ex rel . .Riv.as v.: ·Walsh, 40 AD.3.d 132.7, 837 .. N.Y.S.2d 749 (3d:Dep~t. 2007) (habeas: corpus· relief-was ;Dot available to.defendant .on basis that.there was insufticient·ev~ idence to. sustairi his .fn.dic1;ment 1and conviction, where. defend~t could h~e raised sucl;t claims on direct .. appeal or in :~ ..§,440~10 mQ.tion ito·:vacate.judgnJ.,ent.,of conviction); :Pf#opk ~ re.l~ Green v,. Smith, 84: A.D.3d,910; 823~,N.Y.$.~d 286 Cad. Dep't 2006) .(in~s: m.uch .. as· ··petitio.ner~$ i challfange to the cer.tificate ·of conviction could have: been rai$e.d .on, '*act; appeal OJ;' in a.§ 440.~0. •motion, hab,e~s. corpusjs not.th~ ,appropciate remedy; mor~over,1 even if he. weire. to· _prey,fltl onl hj,s·. ~rgument that ~s cer.tificaf0 of. conviQr tiQn i.a d-eficie.nt; .. p~tit~oner. ,would !}Qt be. entitled to immediate releas~ from prison·· .~nd, thq_s, :habeas corpus relief is: unavail~ able); ..People:exrFel .. Pruitt v.; Zon, 31 AP~3d 1207, 818 N.Y.S.2c;l 888 :{4th Dep't 2006) (petit~oner com~enced this proceeding _seek ing hab.eas corpus relief on..,.the ground .that his court~appointed attorney .was unlawfully practicing law at tl).e_ time of petitio:ner.'~ .arraignµie.µt. on:Jl felony:.co~plaint for a.double:bomic:ide,i:n .. 1989; petitj.oner co1;1tend$ that his .attol"Jley had pleaQ,ed ~lty to, a. mis~ deJD~anar ~charg~. prior· to accepting .. th~!- assignment; which was limited: to .representing p~titiQJ:).er at the arraignment, and thus .petitioner, i~, eff~ct,. :waa. w.µ-epre.se:qt~d at hl.$ _.arrai~ent;; the lqwer <;Qµr.t properly dismisse,4: tb,e: ~titjon. ina~muph: as pe.titi9µ.• er's contention could have.·bee11._r:aised~.oµ,. direct appeal or by Wfj;y of~ mojJio:n pursuant. to art ... ;440); People ex rel~ Ar.io{q, v. Gref#ne-, 28 A.D.3d 1038,, .8.1.4. N.Y.s~24. 342. (3d Dep't :20Q6). (hlJ.~e~s- q~rpus petitioner) was . proce.durEillY. ;barre4 i fro;m .raisj.:qg: clai~: that procedqre.s for <;Ietermining ..w;heith~r-he was in~aei~ted :were no.t:·followed 292 NEWYoruc § 35:36 10 t\.D.3d ·743, 7·81 N.Y.S.2d 757 (3d Dep't '2004) (claim by convicted person that he was improperly delivered to and ac cepted by the Department of Correctional Services because tqe certificate of conviction· authorizing the: execution of his sentence is .defective; given the information co.ntained in the petition, which. included a final order of commitment, petitioner would not be entitled to. immediate release eyen:if successf.1:1~ in his argu iµent; accor9ingly, hab~as corpus is not.av~lable. to petition~r). § ~5:35 Writ of h~beas corpus und~r N~w York Ci~· Practice Law and Rules§§ 7001 to-701~Current use where v,alidity of conviction or. seriten~e not' an issue ~~,Petitioner is. "ntitled, to ~~dia~e · : releas.e · ...... The writ of habeas corpus is, however, an active, .available postconyi.ction remedy in:New Yo:rk in cases "7here the, validity of the conviction or .sentence is. not at issue and the ha.beas p~titioner is entitled to jinnlediate r~h~as. e. · . · ·· · · · . . ' , § 35:36 . Writ of hab~~s. ~orp1;u) und~r New York CiVil .. · Practice Law ari.d Rules§§ 7001.to 1012-Current use where 'validity of conviction or sentence not aD issu~ 1µ1d pe~i#~ner is entitle.d ~~ i.DunediElte, releas~UnlaWfW. actiops of parole or prison .. o~c~als · · '· ' ·· · · · ·· · .. . Habeas co.z-Pµs is used to attack t}l.e. unla¢lll. actions of parole ·or prison officials. : ...... · ·For c~se law. concerning th~ availabiijty of.habeas corpus .relief in New York from the deCisiQn& or conduct. 9f parol~. or prison ·of ficials,. ~ee, e.g., Peopl~ e~. rel .. Lewis p .. Warden, 51 A.D.3.d 51~, 858 ·N.Y.S.2d 141 (1st Dep'f 2008) (petitioner's sent~nce did not include post: release (PRS), .and term.' of PRS achJ:rlnis supe~ioii 1 tratively iniposecl by the ;Departrn~ht of Correctiol}.~l. Seryices (DOCS) was a null~ty); feople. ex ·rel. ".Seals v.,New York. State Dept. of Correctional Seroices, 32 A.D.3d 1262, 822. N.Y.S.2d 351 (4th Dep't 2006) (the 'record est~blishes .. that Sup~eme .Court .initially gra,nted the petitio~ seeking a writ of habeas ~orpus and that t~spondent thereaft.erimoved for)eave to reargu~ with re spect to that· petition; we agree with 'the habeas·;petition~r that the court erred -in: converting respondent's motion to one for' leave to renew and erred in'" granting the -motion a'.nd vacating the prior judgment tha~ granted the· petition); 'People ex'·rel~ Simpson ·v. Warden, Rikers Island -Correctional Facility;' 32 A.D~3d 767, 822 N.Y.S.2d 496 (1st Dep't 2006) (habeas review of prison disciplin ary proceeding); People· ex rel. Ciccarelli v. Saxton, 23 A.D.3d 293 § 35:38 STATE PoSTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND, REUEF I 1095, 804 ~~Y~S.2d·2H (4th Dep't 2005) (parole revocation claim; petitioner's failure-to exhaus~ administrative remedies. with 're~ spect. to final parole revocation' determination foreclosed judicial review in habeas corpus ·proceeding); People ex rel. Schoenwandt v. Travis, 23 A.D.Sd 806, ·803 N.Y.S.2d 749 ·(3d Dep't 2005) :(ha• beas ·attack oil: calculation· of conditional release and maximum release dates,'. ·as well as :on ·parole revocation decision, was moot); People· ex relf Vasquez· v~ Filion, 22 AJ).3d 991, 803; N.Y.s:.2d 720 (3d Dep't 2~05) (even if Department of CorrectiQnal Seryices e~ed in calculating foillate's ·Conditional release· aate, mlnEL~e Was not entitled to ·ipµllediate rele~se frc;>In_ prisQ1f, ··and tb:erefOre habeas corp~s '~r~o~·e~din(~a~·. n~~: pr~p_er ·~ea~~ o.f seeking remedy; proper remedy would be an art: 78 proceedmg); ·People ex rel. Howe v. Travis, 18 A.D.3d 1052, 795 N.Y.S.2d 382 (Sd Dep't 2005) (pardle· revo·catiQn· claim; here, the ·record establishes. that petitfoner' prematurely commenced this"habe'as corpus proceeding prior to his· administrative remedies being 'exhausted; the fact that the administrative appeal ha:s since ~:·been deCided. and, i ac cording. to .,the Attorney G.eneral, affirmed, .do.es not satisfy the · exhaustion· :req~reme~t'.or ·valida~~ .tlfe petition ·.nunc pro tune); People e~ rel.' Sailor &: Travis~ 13 A:0.3d 40S,-·7SffN.Y.S.2d 548 (2ci' Dep't._ ~"<~.04) •· (pl~i~ ~haf ~4iti~t~,)o~er~~ :.<>n.' ~1 arole, was deni~d' ~~~ pr~.c~~~ ·~e~a~~e ~~~ ·~~~i~qf~ ~~o~e _o~c~als failed to obtam a parole violation warrant ana have him deta!Jled on such warrant during t~e period bet'Yeen his ~st ar;fest."'aiid the com mencement of his· iricarceratian~on the conViction arising froni- his third arrest); People ex rel. Sumter v. O'Connell, 10 ·A.'D.3d · 828, 782 .. N.Y~S.2d~,1135 ·,C3d .~'~·p't ·2004): (parole' revocation: claim; petitforier claims: tliaJ he1 has yet to receiv~ ·the ·statutorily mandated Written· sta~inent from .. the.. parole board ip.dicating ·the basis (or j~s deterlninatioii!'·w~( find this claim meritorious; as a matter of rundaniental :due proeess,· P,etition:er was· entitled to the prompt :r~c!eip(of 'that .stateiiient 'so .that· he :might have an informed ·basie ·upa;t;t· which.~<> .seek 'rey}ew; -neither the failure 'to purshe an!t:t'dmimstra:tive\appe~f·not the absence 'of.prejudice will fcir~c1os~1 .<>tir re~ew: .~f. ~liat. :cl~t#);)'eC?PW ~ rel. Watso~ ·v .. W,d,l~~; 7 .A.D~3d ~qq, 7J6.~~Y~.~d_352 ~,~:~,:µ~~}~004) (trial.~?lirtl~c~~4 perso:r;u4.Jtm$dict1on. ove.r, liape,as.,P,et~t1on due t~. pet1tione~'s .. f~k ui~.'to conwiY. With terms ·af writ_q(~~b~a~ ~orl>µs. dll:ecti~g:tlia~ ~eritice. pfthe writ and petition. he m~de upon ·p_rj.son superlp.ten~ dent,. as respqµdent,_ absen.t '· ~howii1g; ~h~.~ i~ptj~onm~rit ·. pre: sented .an o~stacl.e beyo~d-petitionef $. c.ontrol that p~e~en~ed hl.~ CQD_lpli~c~ ;with the, ser:vice; :dir.e.cti'\'~S).: . I ' • • . ~. . ... '· •, .. .--, 294 I I NEwYoRK § 35:38 § 35:87 . Judicial, reviewi of ;tbe1 actfons of parole and.; r. ·,·i ··.,prison officials under New.. York Civil Practice. :i: -. Law aiid RUies, Article 78· ; · · · . .. · · · • : • \ ' '. ' ' : • -~ ~., ' .- ' • r ~ • i - : I ,-, ' 1 : • I -c , 1 ' • ' . An~th~r.p~stCpnviction ~~~e~Y.~.New:York:1s judicial.r~'1~w of ~e~ain de¢~sion~: .cw, a.~t~Qi;t~ of P,~~~e. !l~ ptj~oP.. offi~~als, pursu~ ant to, ,Artic~e .7~ 1 of th~f-~~~ ! Yqr~ .C~vil :. Practic~ Law .and Rµl:e~: I~ ,f:i~w; .Yor;k~ a. procee.~~g·: und~ Article ?,S is the ptjm~ :vehi cle for~ obtai~ngjµ,cllcial reYi,ew. of. admi.Ilistratiye: actfons. by an ~enc:Y,. pr: ~fficiaj .· ¥ ·~4~ :~:~at~. goy~rwn~nt~: ~ . : I • : · ; ' • . .·j ·• • · ; ; , · · ; ~·An: .art.!:!78 prQceeding,.is ·a judicial. pr.o.ceecJing::in tbe.·na..ture of c.ertio~arj,. i;nandamus~. andn)rQhibition, '.Vhe art. 7-8· remedy .is ~u~ thori·ze.d ~is, statµtqrily ,autho:dzed;·;by ,Article .7s -e'P,roceedip.gs Against: l3ody--or. Officer~.) of-. Chapt~r:8 ("Of the ·consolida,ted L,aws"). of the: Civil :Practice Law: and. Rules :Qf M.cKin~.ey:s CoQ.S_o.lidated ~Law.~! pf :New York ,Annotat~d .(N. .'¥ •. Civ .. Prac~ ·Law &. Rul~$. § 780J thr.ough § 7,S06). . , . . ~ . . ... ··•Generally;; a conVicted person must .exhaust all' adniinistrative remedies ·before .applying fo:rr.· art;! 78 :relief., See, e.g~,. Miller v. Croce,. 290; A.D.2d 662{·736 -N.Y.:S.2d ·176, (3d Dep't· 2002) (a petitianer .--with: a- grievance ·against an· agency must first exhaust all available· administrative remedies before seeking' art. 78 relief; there are exceptions 'to, the ~Xhaustion doctrine).- ., 'An: art. ·78 ·proceeding is usually brought· 'in· the· New York Supreme ·Court in any county: withln the judicial ;.filstrict' where the· respondent niade·the determination compla:ined1 of. -N~Y. Civ~ Prac~ '.Law1 & Rules § 506(b),-§· 7801(b)~ · · 1 ... · =.. , -. i There is a· statute df limitatibns on art.; ;78 pr9ceeding~. Bunter v. Dd~·i4;-20. ;l\U$C,. ad·ll42Cl\?,.'872 N~Y.s~.2a·s93 csup·2.008)'(there is a .4~· Iriohth sfatuttl'of''limitation.s. 6if :coriuneilcing an; art~· 78 proceeding; tlie. limitati~ns period comm.enced ·W,hen. the petitioner 1 receivsd"notiCe Of the adverse' decisi6ri).' :, I : • .. , • . • • • ' ! . )nsofaia~df ~~ lnVQ~~d afa p·ost~onvic~i'on r~Iileay~"art .. 78,is ipost. fr~quently µse~- .~gain~t parol~ o~cials t~. :rai"s~ ·claims 'relat i~¢. to 4erlials or rev~ca~i'o*s of par~le;· Wi~h respect to prison of ficiaJ~, _the -r~piedy:.ls m-Q~t;·~~quently · ti~ed t~ o}?t~~ J'1.~icial reView of prison disciplinacy proceedings~ · · · · · : • , ' )_ 1" • ' _i ~-~ : ! '. I : )' '·" .1 • • L_; - : , ,·' t \ · ·: l _l ' I \ · ! ' 'r- i.; j · ' j ! §: 35:88 !~udici~ ;reVi~\v-; oft~~· ~~tlons 'of p~ol~.~d.. . '. . ! : ' ·) ~ :: ; · · prison officials.under New·YorkCiVil Practice · · Law &ii~ ·R~es, ~.i,cle 7~~ase 1'0:~ '.: '..• .. · ~" ·· ' ' . . '··' . l .. ' ..... ' . • . . ' .For. case· law oµ. the use of art. 7.B as a postconviction remedy in NewYork,.see, e:g., Garner.v .. New York State.Dept., of Correctional Services,10 N.Y.. 3d.858, 859 N~Y.S.2d·590, 889 N.E~2d 467.(2008) (petitioner seeking. a writ ofprohibition must demonstrate· that: 295 §"35:38 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF (1) a body or-officer is acting in.a judicial or .quasi-judicial capa city,. (2) that body or officer is proceeding··or threatening to proceed in excess of its jurisdiction and (3) petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief requested; even if those f~cts are established~ .. the· writ may still be denied if Supreme Court, in exercising· its discretion, concludes the. remedy is.. not· warranted because, for example, the harm· allegeqly ·suffered is not' suf ficiently grave ·or because other ptoceedirigs in law or equity could correct·the··alleged error; court must exam~ne ·several factors including the gravity of the ·harm that would result to 'petitioner, the availability of another ·adequate remedy to: correct that harm, and whether prohibition would p:rovide a more complete :and ef fective remedy if other remedies are potentially available); People v. Taveras,· 10 N.Y.3d 227, 855 N ..Y.S.2d 417, 885 N.E.2d 181 (2008) (defendants convicted and sentenced 'in absentia were not foreclosed from challenging their purported illegal sentences in· a motion to set aside sentence after they were no longer fugitives);. People. v. Lavilla, 48 A.D.3d 1199, 849 N.Y.S.2d 746 (4th Dep't 2008) (statute allowing court in which judgment of :conviction was entered to set aside sentence oil .specified grounds did not authotjze court to issue order setting forth sentence that did not include period of postrelease supervision); Dreher v. Goord, 46 A.D.3d 1261, 848 N.Y.S.2d 758 (3d ·Dep't ·20.07) (corrections of~ ficials lacked authority to impose upon prisoner any peri9d of postrelease. sup~rvision which was not ,included· by a court as part of his sentence); Sweeney v. Dennison, 52 .A.D.3d 882, 858 N.Y.S.2d 845 (3d Dep't 2008) (sta~ute requiring te~nation of sentence ajter two or three years. of unrevoked parole did not· ap ply to former prisoner who had been granted presumptive release); Pa~ki~so~ ·'!: .Se~$~Y, _49 4·~~~d 98~, ~53 N..:V~S.2d ;412 (3d Dep't 2008) (despite the lack ..of adequate assistance prior to the hearing, the Hearing Offic~:r;-. remedied the si~uation by provid ing petitioner all of the _documents he requested, save those that did not· exist or were irrelevant to the charged misbehavior, and additional· time was granted to permit petitioner to review those documents; pr,isoner was not pr~judiced by ~he or~ginal inad~ quacy); Barksdale v. Dennison, 40 A.D.3d i?33~ 834 N.Y.S.2d 74_7. (3d Dep't 2007) (art. 78 proceeding to reView determination of Board of Parole revoking iruµate~s p,ar9le a~d holding. him µntil his maximum expiratjon date; statute provicling_ for .automatic re vocation of parole when parolee has be;e.~ ·seri,fenceq., to a new felony in state 'while ·under parole supervision and sentence imposed .is an indeterminate one did. not apply ·to par.alee convicted of new felony in another state; therefore, a final revoca.;. tion hearing was properly held);.Tafari v. Belsky, 40 A.D.3d 1172, 836 ·N.Y.S.2d 306 (3d_ Dep't 2007) (art. 78 .review of prison 296 NEW YORK §.35:38 disciplinary proceeding; failure to.advise inmate, when he refused to leave his cell for prison disc_iplinary hearing; .of his right to. at tend the hearing and the· consequences associated with failing. to appear-that .the hearing would be held in his :absenc~required reversal~ of dete~mination which .found: him ~guilty .of· violating certain prison disciplinary: rules;· inmate did.not knowingly and voluntarily waive his, right· to attend; relief. granted); Lovell v. New York .State Div. of Parole, 40 AD.3d 1166, 835 N.Y.S.2d. 514 (3d Dep't 2007) (art. 78 r~yiew:of determination of BoEµ"d .of Pa role denying inmate's:· request for parole release; here, failure of Board of Parole to review sentencing minutes in ruling on request for parole ·release necessitated remitting ·matter to .Bo·ard·for-,d~ novo hearing during which sentencing minutes and tecommenda~ tions of sentencing court·. would, be considered· by Board; relief granted); Ondrizek v. Dennison, 39 A.D.3d 1114, 835 N.Y.S.2d 481 (3d Dep't 2007) (art. 78: review. of Board ·of Parole decision denying inmate's request for :parole release, and. ordering that he be held for: an additional 42 months; inasmuch as the. B.oard's de cision does not exhibit irrationality· bordering·on impropriety, we find no reason to disturb it); Abdur-Raheem v. Burge, 39 A.D.3d 927, 835 N.Y.S.2d 457 (3d Dep~t 2007) (art.· 78 review .ofdetermi nation of the ·Commissioner ·Of Correctional .Services which directed that inmate be placed in· administrative segregation); Gomez v. Goord,. 34. A.D.3d 963, ·823 N.Y.S~2d 610 (3d Dep't 2006) (art. 78 review of determination of the Central Office Review Committee .denying inmate's grievance with respect to recom mendation .by Department of Correctional Services that he· par ticipate in residential substance abuse·treatment ·program; appel late review of administrative determination. denying prisoner's grievance is limited to ascertaining whether there. is a rational basis for the decision or whether it is arbitrary and: capricious); Porter v. Dennison, 33,A.D.3d 1147, 822·N.Y.S.2d 679 (Bd Dep't 2006) (art. 78 review of determination of Board of Parole denying inmate's request for parole release;· parole release decisions are discretionary and· will not be· disturbed unless petitioner demonstrates irrationality:bordering on impropriety); Corley v. New York State Div. of Parole,33·A.D.3d 1142, 822 1 N.Y.S.2d 817 (3d Dep't 2006) (art. 78 review of determination of Board of Pa role denying inmate's·:vequest for parole· release;· inasmuch as we do not find that the Board's decision exhibits irrationality border ing on impropriety, .we find no reason to disturb it); -Lewis v. Rivera, .32 A.D.3d 1120, 821 N.Y.S.2d 678 (3d~Dep't 2006) (art. 78 review· of prison disciplinary proceeding; here, inmate's due pro cess rights· were violated by prison .hearing officer's denial of inmate's request tg view videotape of incident in the mess. hall during which inm.ate purportedly became irate and belligerent 297 § 36:38 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF toward aicorrection .officer, and for which he was chargedlwith creating a· distrirbance and ·refusing a~direct order;· relief granted); Bonilla· v~ ;New~ York State Bd. ·!of Parole~ 32 A.D.3d··l070,: 820 N.Y.S.2d 661· (3d·~,Dep't 2006) (art. :78 review of determination· of the State .Board of Parole, denyinir:inmate's request .fo:u parole release;: inasmuch as the record: establishes that the· denial of the imnate's request for parole ..was· based'qpon consideration of rele vant s.tatutory factors·, and, there is· no showing of irrationality bordering .on.: impropriety), .further judicial review· is· unwar ranted); :Guzman v; .. Denrt.ison, 32 AD~3d: 798~ ~21 N.Y.S.2d ·208 (1st Dep'1t ;2006) (art. ·78 .. review·of parole denial.claim; .while .petitfoner's: prison :record,.is~ commendable, respondent's denial of parole based on the ·serious: and;.violeri.t nature of his offense. is not arbitrary andicapricious);·Mo.Kethan v.'Kafka, 31A.D.3d1078, 819 N.Y.S.2d.204 (3d'Dep't·2006).(inmate brought art. 78 proceed~ ing to .review a determination of Department of Correctional Ser vices refusing .to expunge certain references from his institutional record; appellate review of determination denying an· inmate's request to ·have certain ·references expUllged:from his· institutional record is. limited to whether it" is irratiOnal, 'arbitrary or ca'.pri~ cious); Alicea· v. Belsky, 31.A.D.Sd 1080, 819 N.Y.S.2d 202 (Sd Dep't 2006) (art. 78·review ·of, prison· disciplinary proceeding; inmate~$ claim that-he w:as unable to attend his disciplinary. hear ing due to ·back pain that prevented· him from standing or walk ing was not ·sufficiently refuted. by opinion of· facility nurse; under circumstances;. the disciplinary: ·hearing should. not ·have .been conducted in ·inmate's absence; relief granted); Kalwasinski v. Go<:>rd,.31 A.D.Sd·.1081, 819 N.Y.S.2d 200 (Sd.Dep't.2006) (art:·78 review, of prison·!'disciplinary pr.oceeding); Curro v. Goord,. 31 A~n.3d 825, 819 N.Y,S.2d 135 (8d Dep't 2006) (art. 78 review of prison: disciplinary..•. proceeding;· inmate was ·.properly found guilty of violating·~ prison disciplinary ,rule prohibiting receiving compensation.for providing legal. assistance);·Ramirez ·v. Goor.d; 32 A.D.3d 601, 818 .N.Y.S.2d. 867 (Sd ·Dep't_ 2006). (art;··,78 review of prison· disciplinary· proceeding; iinmate~s plea of guilty with ·an explanation. to providing unaµthorized legal:assistance:precludes him from challenging the,~etermination of guilt); Loliscio· v. Goord, 3liAiD~sd~929, 817. N~Y.S.2d.776 (Sd Dep~t 2006) (inmate brought art/- 78' proceeding to 'Compel· Commissioner. of .Corr~ctional Ser vices ,to. expunge· certain ·information from ;his institutibnal. re~ . cords related to hiS criminal history); Wilcher v .. Dennison, 30 A.n~ad .958·, 81~ '.N~Y.S.2d .449 (3d Dep't 2006:) (parole denial claim;· inasmuch as the record fails tQ support petitioner's conten.. tion that the· discretionary decision of the parole· board was· ir rational to the point. of bordering· on impropriety, ~er judicial review is tinwarranted); ·Rolon v. ,Goor 298 NEW·YORK . , : ~ . § 35:39 N.Y.S.2d 119 (3dt Dep't.:2006) (art; 78=~evieW. of ·prison disciplin a:iry '.proceeding; hearing~. Officer's I :·er.ioneOUS failure,· 'in: :priSOll disciplinary proceeding, to provide inmate with medical· recolids peirtaining. to .injurias .suffered. by .cQ;rre.ctimi: ·ofiice:rs ·inv.oly~d in i~ciqent ·which led to chB:J;"g~~- of, ,\n.terr ~li~,. :~ssaµlthig--staff; .. was h~l~ss);· ·JJa.ll U;.! Goqr.dh3.0 .A.D.~3d 9~1, 819 Ji.¥.S.~d."!133;(3d Dep't 2.006) {art•. 7~ ~~Vi~w _of;prU;qp di_sciplinary proc~.~g;. ithe art. 78 petition asserts a purely procedural ,j~~\le and .doe~ not challenge the q~t~rmination on. sub~taµtial e~(leµc~_.m:Q'1!1ds; ac :cord,ingly, th~' ~nipr,e¢.e. ~o~ ..:er;r;~djii rwansferriilg the p:r;-~ceec;ling to-~. '.c?~;--n~v~~e!~~~' w~islt.~ r~taj~J~scµc~~Ii apd 'r~fi~w the,.nients m the .interest .of Jucijcial ~cono1J1y); A.lparez-.u.; GOqrq, 1 3,o _A.p.3cLp~, _8,f3'N.iY.S.2~ 5~:4~(3~ D~p'~- 200~) (art:.. is:·rev}e~ of ,prison disciplinary p;i:o~ee~g; :t:l-n.de~: ~I?.e U.S.:_Con,.stitution, ~n#i~~es. ch~ged With' V~OlatiOI,lS. of prisoti. disciP,li~ary ~\e.S ~haye a¢o~djtional right'to-cfill wi~ne$~e~in p~son dfs~iplif:ta~yproceed ings,' but prison offictial.s: lj~v.e rl:hfoi:etion, :in priso11· qlsciP,linazy pro~,eedirigs, tp_ deny aii inmat~'s re~uested ajtnesse~·Jii o~der ·w .~void .JeoparcUzing institutio#al- safety or ·correctiOnal goals,); .Y~rgas}'·;,Vnger,,2,9 i\P·~9 ·~2~8, .8~6 ~.Y.R2.~ 51~.{3d)~~p;~ 2006) (mm~~ l;>rought iµ-t. ,7~ prqce¢Ping to cha~~eng~ de~ermma tion of the Time ~lo~aripe qotjlµrlttee; ·he;r;~, iµmate's. faUure t9 .~omply wit;h seiyice ·reqllirein~~i,s~ reqtl.ired dismissal, on b~is' of l~ck of pep.~c;nial)µtj.sdiction,. ~(~i-t·. -~8 p~ti#on);. P,ur~el, v.. [)e,n_n~~ sor\, 2~.A.D .. .Sd 11,2,~, 814 .N.Y:i~.2d ,787 (3d ,Dept *oqa)., (p~r,ol~ deajal ,claip,;. th~ P~J?~f,~ Il:e~~~~~: ..~o; qo~ence ~e in~tt).rit-' .~. 78.p_rQceeQ:irig_were :r.ec~1yed by.the cl~r~'s. offic~ aft~~.th~ expµ-a~ tion ofthe Joilr-month statute qf limitatio~, cwhich beg~ t!J :run wP.~m petitiQ~~r acqqired notice of the. detenajnation~:·1 .aJ.th §' 35:$.9 .Wrli. 'of -~rr()r cor.W ~obi.._Cw.Tent availabilitY ! . . . . ,; ill app~lla~~ .coil#~: .> . " '~·: ._ .. '. ': ·-. . l. ~ • ' • • J ' l • • . ' . . .. The·:common law: Writ .of .error coran1 nobis .is ·a postconviction remedy in New York., The remedy. is· available .only 'in;an· appel late court, and" the only\ claim cognizable, under·. the~ :remedy_ is that- .the convicted .person. received the: ineffective assistance of 299 §·35:39 STATE PosTcoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF co~sel in .the appellate court on direct ·appeal; it is the only post conviqtion remedy for a claim of ineffective assistance. of appel- 1 late· counsel. ~ . : . • Under a 2002 amendment to.N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §-450.90(1), a deci~ion ·of-the Appell~te Division of the New York Supreme Court granting or ·denying a coram '.nobis petition raising a claim of ineffective assistance ·of counsel may 'be appealed to the1 New York c.ourt of A~rea~s< · · · ·. · : · " . · :: ": ,, . .· · For ~ase l~:w on ·error coram n~b1s, see, e.g.; People v. V,arenga, 2·6 N.Y;_3d 529, 25 N~Y.S.3d· 4~, 45 N.E.3d 945 (2015) (motion for corani: ii.obis relief in context of convicted person who did not -take ~· dire'ct' appeal ha~ no time limitation, a~d the relief granted is precisely the· same as the relief granted"on a successful N.Y. Crim.·Proc. Law§ 460.30 .application: the: defendant is allowed to ~ea late notice of appeal and take~ direct appeal to the.Appel;. late DiVision; a defendant seeking leave to file a late notice of ap peal by way of a writ of error coram nobis·generally must' satisfy a· higher evidentiary burden· than a· defendant· seeking § 460.30 relief); People v·. Rosario, 26 N~Y.3d ·597, 26 N.Y.S.3d 490,. 46 N.E.3d 1043 (2015) (in People_ ·v. Syville, 15 N.Y.3d 391, 912 N.Y.S.2d 477, 938 N.E.2d 910 (2010), we held that a defendant who learns, after the expiration of the one-year grace period provided in N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 460.30, that a notice of ap peal was. not timely .filed on his behalf due' to ·the ineffective as;;. sista~ce of his counsel may, under very limited circumstances, have;re~ourse by way of a coram nobis appli,cation; defendants in t~ese appe~s cla:4n they are entitled to. such relief; we disagre~, and therefore affitm jn both appeals from denials of original co~ ·rant nobis petitions 'filed in. and denied by the Appellate DiVisiori; 'neitner defendant claims that; he requested that his at~rney' file a notice of appeal and that his attorney failed to comply with that request; ;rather' they! Claim that coµnsel did. not advise them · of the right 'to appeal and had defendants known. about their right 'to appeal, ·they would have requested one; ·however, in· both appeals~.the_ only· evideJ;lce'proffered in_support·of the conte·ntion .that. aefendants were not apprised of their appellate rights is self-ser:ving .affidavits; the records' as a whole ·reveal _that defendants knew about their right to appeal; nor 'did defendants make any showing that they took steps toward discovering the omission or explain why years pass_ed be:for~ they sought .c:oram nobis relief; in order to obtain excep~i.on~ :r~llef beyond the time permitted under § 460.30, a defendant must· show that he exercised due diligence; the records ~n both· appeals ·support the conclusion that defendants had no intention of appealing, as both waited years before seeking relief);· People v. Andrews, 23 N.Y.3d 605, 993 N.Y.S.2d 236, ~ 7 N.E.3d 491· (2014) (when an attorney 300 NEW YORK § .35:40 has· failed to comply with a timely request for the filing .of a no tice .of appeal and the defendant alleges that the omission could not reasonably have been discovered within the one.year period, the prope~ procedure is a coram ·nobis application to the Appel late Division; .. only defendants who could ·not reasonably have discovered the omission during that period .are entitled to utilize the coram nobis procedure); People v. Syville, 15 N.Y.3d 391, 912 · N.Y.S.2d 477,. 938 N.E.2d 910 (2010) (CPL § 460.30 permits the Appellate. Di~sion to excuse a ·defendant's failure to file a .timely notice of appeal from· a, criminal conviction if the application is made within one year, of the date the notice· was due; in these c~ses,.we are asked whether the coram ·nobis procedure is avail able to afford further relief to defendants who did not move within the one-year grace period because they were unaware during ~hat year that their attorneys had not complied with .their requests· to file notices of appeal; we hold; that. they may; here,- the applica tion· for coram nobjs relief w~s filed. in the Appellate. ·Division; here an attorney has failed to comply with. a timely reque_st .for the filing -of. a notice ofappeal and the defendant alleges th~t the omiefsion ~o.uld not reasonably h~:v~ bee11 djscovered within, the one-yea:r period,· the time limit imposed in CPL § 460.30 should not categorically bar an appellate court from considering "that defendant's application to pursue. an untimely appeal; turning to the procedlire to be used in· invoking the excep.tion, we. conclude that. the '·common-law writ .of error .coram nobis aft'o'rds the ap propriate avenue for. relief; sirice the adoption of the. CPL, we ha've.ac~owledged that the ~t continues to be available to al leviate a. constitutional wrong when a defendant has no· ·other procedural recourse; here, an attorney has failed to comply with a· timely request for the filing of a notice of appeal and the defendant :alleges that the omission: could ·not reasonably hav~ been discovered· Within the one-year period;' in ·most cases· strict enforcement of the CPL § 460.30 time limit is constitutionally permissible because attorneys usually·, accede to their clients' requests· to file notices of :appeal and, when they. fail to do so; most defendants are in a position to discover the omission within the statutory grace period); People v. Prescott, 21 N.Y.3d 925, 967 N.Y.S.2d 887, 990 N.E.2d 125 (2013) ·(appellate counsel's failure to apprise defendant of conflict of interest from simultaneous rep resentation .of codefendant prior to or. during appeal process, in . disregard of duty to client and where defendant· did not waive conflict, warranted grant of writ of error coram nobis). } ·' I § 35:40 Writ of error coram nobis-Current availability in appellate. court-Claims of ineffective ..assistance of appellate counsel-Case law ...... ' ' -For New ,York case law on the use of common law coram nobis 301 I § 36:40 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF in an appellate court to: litigate claims ·of ineffective appellate counsel, ·see, e.g.; People v~ Battles; 12'7 A.D.3d 984, 4. 'N.Y~S.3d 918 .. (2d Dep't 2015) (relief denied); Smith v. Duncan~ 411 ·F~3d 840·· (2d· Cir. 2005) (in, New. York, coram nobis is the. appropriate remedy for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; there: is1 no time ·limit for :filing a writ· of :error coram no bis); Fernandez v.. Artuz; 402 F.3d·lll (2d Cir... 2005) (in New York,- there.i& no deadline at.' all far :filing 'coram nobis petitions); People v. Dyla, 52 · A.D.3d 782,' 861-N.Y.S.2d ·98 (2d Dep't 2008) (in .applying for writ of error. coram nobiS, key issue is :whether evidence, law, and par ticular· case's'. circumstances;. viewed· in totality and as of time· of appellate· counsel'~ ·representation .of defendant, ..reveal -.that ap pellate counsel provided meaningful representation'to defendant); People v. Adams; ·51 A.D.Sd 1136, 857· N.Y~S.2d 789 (Sd·Depft 2008) (contentionth~t his appellate counsel's failure to'.raise trial counsel's. ineffective .assistance. in liis brief constitutes ineffective assistance· -of appellate counsel should' be addressed. to ·this Court ' in a~ common-law c·oram·:no~is proceeding);· P~ople L!.: 'Turner; ·5 N.Y.3d. 476, 806 N.Y.S.2d 154, '840 N:··E;2d" 123·(2Q05)1 (defendant applied iri the ~ppellate· Division ·for '.writ ·of error coram' nobis; the Appellate Division granted the writ;· the st~te appealed. to tlµs court;·: ~n appel~~te la\VYer is· not alwi,iys jµ~tµi~d: 'for pµryose of ineffe.ctive assistance .. Pf counsel' c~aiin, in· omitting an/ ·argu nierit that,~as a·go.od ch.an~e·to ,wi.n ~~~·case, s·ol~I:y bec~ii~~ h~.o~ she ~Y ·~e·asonably .t~ .oµe ot~er arguµient is e~en. }?etter; we agree' Wit;t.i' the App~lla~e ·n~yis~on; appellate~ co~n~el :~~s· i'ne~e~+ tive .. in failirig .to a~gue · 01f direct ~pp~ar that tri'lll. ·coµnsel .. .w~s ineffectiv~ µi faiUng tq raise statute of Huµtation8 d~fe~e; relief granted); Peqp~~ v. DaU(kifis,.2'1. A.D ..3d 576,. 813.N.Y:.S.?d lO~,(?d Dep't ~Q06) (proper procedur~ .f~r addres.smg ~efe:Didan~'s. clam~ t4at .he w~s ~ep.ied the effecti~e assistance .of; appellate ~9unsel ~n coIµlection .;with motion .m~d~ in· appellate: court was .aµ appµc~~ tion for writ_ of error_ cor~, 11obis ·.addressed tQ :·-appeUa.te court); People .v~ Shegog, 23 A.D~ad 1158~: 807 N.Y.S.2d~764 (4th. Dep't 2005) (potential merit to claim that: appellate. counsel iWas ineffec tive in failing tQ raise ineffective assistance. of ·trial counsel, who took position,contrary·to defendant's prose motion in trial colirt~ warranted granting motion: for writ of error ,co:ram~n.Obis·;:vacat ing .order affirming conviction, and considering appeal de novo; motion for writ .of error coram nobis granted).. er· : :-· •· •. '! § 35:41 Postconviction DNA testing statute under New ·, , . . · York Criminal Procedure· Law § 440.SO(ha) , .._ ~: ~ New York has a· postconviction :ONA testing ·statute·~ originally enacted by the Act ofAiig~·2,: 1994, ;ch. 737, § 2; 1994 N.Y. Laws 3709, 3715, and, as. amended ·by the Act of July. 6~· 2004, ch. :.138, 302 § 35:42 § 2;· 2004.MoKinney's N~Yi~ Sess •. Laws·960; 961to·62,tcoclified at N.Y ..Crim. Procr1Law.§ 440~30(1-a). Under N.Y.,Criin. Proc. Law § 450~10(~},;·ep.a·cte_d: in·~,1~99·,·'an. order·.denyifig .a.§ 44Q~30(1-a) motion fO:r:fotensiC DNA'. testing of eVitlence· rnay·be"appealed of right by::the ·defendaii:t to an,· interlnecliate appellate court (the Appelfat.~ -Di~sion of the·: New'York 1S~pretne Court)~ Under N.Y. C~m. J~'r6~. Law·'§ ·450:·20(11), .ehact~d 'in 1~·~~'. ari. order granting a· §1 4·4'0'.SO(l~a)' ·inotio1ffor for~risfo DNA ·t~sting of evidence may ~e -~~I>.e~~P 9£..riglit J>1.~9~: pe.~p~Ef to an illt~nµec¥.~te.· ~ppellate court (the :A.ppell~te .D1~s1on 9f the· New. York ~upreme Court) . ..! ... J : ~ l ' . ~ ~ . . - : ' ' ,.-• ' • ! . , . ~ . - . § 35:~~~ .-:P~~tc.~~v~ct~~~·ll~A: t~·~ting·s~~tut~ · .. ·. ·~ ·:~ New·· York's postcrinviction ·DNA testing· statute, originally enacted in: 1994, ! and as amended in 2012~= is codified· at N.Y. Grim. Proc. Law§§ :,W0.10(g4)~ 440~30Cl-a). · ·L N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §§ 440~10(g-1) proVides: · · ·.. , .. 1. At any time after the: entry 'of·a:judginent, the court in ·which it was enterea may, -upon, motion· of the defendant, vacate such'judgment upo~· the groµnd that: _· . · · · · •'; , • , , l f ai.j ' 1 •.i - , 1 · · · · ·cg-1) 'F~'iensic DNA: t.est~i;ig\ 6r evidence ]lerform~d since the entry of a judgment, (1) in the cas·e of a defendant '.coriyjcted after~ a. guilty' plea,' the 'court h.~s. ,detei-mined that the'.)defendant has d"emons~rated a ·subs'tantial p~obability that the defendant was'.actually innocent 'ofthe·o'ffense of which he or ·she was convicted; or (2) oin 'the;:case of a d~fendant conVicted ·after a trial;· the· ·court has; determined 1 that t,here exists a· reasonable probability that the verdict • • wotild have ·been more favorabl~. to the defendant. • ~ ' ~ • ~ • • •• L 1 ..., ~ : ' • O ' • f : : \ 'N~Y. Grim. Pr_qc. Lliw § 4~6.30(1-a) provides:c ; . · ..·' · i;~ .. i.~~: . (a,); C{) ~~ere th:e d~e~dant'~ lllO~i~n req~~sts the per , . ·· JQ~~ce'. pf a, fwensk.PNA test p11 speejfie.d ~yi9:ence, and _upon ~e.~o~'s dewrnuµ.~tion that .~Y.~vidence contain . ing .deo?CYfibonucleic .~cid (~DNA~) was .~ec_ur~d~~n connec .... tion :w:~th ~he .tr~al r~~u!ting ip. .~he .Jgdgn;ie~~' ~he court . .· ... ~hall grant the appli,ca~Q;n. ~qr :~or~nsic D,NA. ~.estip.g of such ;;· ~!'. . ~y:i~ence uponJt~ ~~termi;natjpn ..t}l~tjf -a D.N;.t\-test had ... . : b~en ~ondu~~ed .oi;i.. ~uch ~~d~n.c~, ~n 304 NEwYoRK § 36:43 dence and if the specified ·evidence no longer exists or the physical location of the specified evidence is unknown, a rep- . resentation to that. effect and information and documentary evidence in the possession of the people concerning the. last known physical location of such specified evidence. If there ,is a finding by; the coµrt th~t the specified evjdence .no longer .exists or. the physical .location of such specified evidence .is 1 Unknown, such information· in and of itself shall not be' a 'fac tor from which any inferen~e· unfavorable to the people. may be draw:q by the court in deciding a motion under this 8ection. The~ court, on motion of the defendant, may also issue a subpoena duces tectim directing a public· or private hospital, laboratory or other entity to produce such specified evidence in its possession and/or information and documentary.'.eVi dence in. its possession concerning the location. and status of such specified· evidence~ · ·(c) In response to a motion under this :paragraph, upon no- . ,tice to the· parties and to. the entity· required· to .. perform the search the court may order an .entity that has access to .the combined DNA index. system ("COD IS") '.Or its. successor system to comp~re a· DNA profile obtained from probative biological material gathered in connection with the .investiga tion or prosecutio~ ~f th~ .defendant against DNA qat~b~s by keyboard searches, or ·a sjmilar method that ..does not . involve uploading, upp;n.' a coutt~sdetermination·that (1) such profile· ·complies with· f~dera:l .bilreau of investigatiQrt .o~ state requireme~ts, whichever are applii:able .and as :such ·reqµire.;. ments are applied tcj ·1aw· enforcement 'agencies· seekirig" such .. a comparison, 'and~ that 'the 'd'ata meet state· DNA. index system and/or national DNA index. system criteria: as ·such criteria ar~ applied to law enforcei#t\nt agencies ·seeking.such a comparison and. (2) if such comparison had beeri. conducted, and if the results had been admitted in: the trial resulting in · , , the -judgment~ a reasonable probability ·exists that the verdict would' have been more 'favorable to. the ·defendant,: or. in a case: involving a plea' of· guilty, if the results· had been .avail able to the defendant prior to '.the plea, a reasonable :prob- : ability .exists· that the. -conviction would· not .have :resulted~ For purposes of this subdivision, a "keyboard search" shall mean a search of:a DNA profile against the databank in which the profile that.· is searched is not uploaded to. or maintained in the d,atabank. § 35:43 · Postconyjctlon D.N~ t.est~ng statut~ tindei- New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.30(1-a)-C~se (aw. · · · · · For case'law on ·New York's:postconviction~DNA testing stat- 305 §"35:43 STATE PosrooNVICTION REMEDIES AND ·RELIEF ute,-see, e.g., People v:rMaririe, 132 A.D.3d 459, 17 .N.Y.R3d 410 (1st Dep't 2015); leave to appeal _denied, 26 N.Y.3d · 1090, 23 N~Y.S.3d 647, ·44 N.E.3d 945 (2015) (order denying; defendant's N.Y: .Crim;· Proc.· Law·§ .440.30(1-a) motion· for :DNA testing is af firmed; "regardless -of the results of any 1 testing, there is no: rea sonable ,probabl.Uty, given the specific circumstances and the ·rela tiol1ship' bf these ·itemi:to the case, that' DNA _testing ·of a knife ~d ,~ertairi cl~tlµ:Qg,w~:ul~. hav~ J:ed' t~ a. verdic~ more· ~fayorable to defenda~t)';- People v. Reed, 12_9· #\.D.3d 1508, 11 N.Y:S.3d 769 C4t4 .D~p't 201?) (defendant apP.~al~ from 'that part of an order de~ying hi$ _pro se·.motion p_ur,suant to N,.Y .. (Jrim. Proc.' Law §.)._4;0.-30(l~a) s~.~~ng DN.f\ testi~g of blood-.that ·was o~ l1js boots wb~n lie w~s arrested; becau.s~ .th~ ·blood was subjecte_d .to: DNA testing before :trial, and§ 440.30(1-a) does not; provide for retest ing of DNA material, we conclude that County Co~ properly denied thei mo_tion; w~ :therefore: further conclude .that there is no reasonable; probability that the verdict would have been: more , favorable to· him even if DNA· testing had established that the blood on the ·boots was not that of any of the victims}; Newton v. City of'New .. Yor'/i, 779 F.3d.,140.(2d Cir. 2015) (cliscussirig·New York' postconvic~fon ·DNA ·te.~th;tg_ statute); People· v. Pitts, 4 N.Y.3d 303~·'.795 N.Y.S.2d:'.'l51, 828 N:E.2d '67 (2005) (over the la$~ _10 ~e~~~1 f~reri~dc· J?i~A,. te1~ti;tl~ 'ha.s ~beconi~ an a~c4ra~ ~nd rehabl~ :Qleans of .analyzing pllys1c.aJ. ~vidence collected at cnme ~~eries 'aqd has. played 'an.; ipcreasjngiy important 1tQl~ in conclu siyeJy: ~qrinecting· inclividu~~ tQ. c~s ~nd exonerating. prisoners wl?-!l. ,,,.~~e ,~op.gfullf convfoted;· ;~ ,1~9~,, ~he l~gislature enacted § 440 .. 30(1-a)~ e~tablishing :~ new proc~dure. for d'efen<;lants· who were._'c~nvicted .p~or:.tO :1~96_ to ~e~ur~ 'DNA:·~es~ing; in,2QQ1 the ~~gislatw.e ame.n~e § 35:44 Erroneous Convictions Act under New, York Court of Claims Act § 8-b New York has an erroneous convictions act. New York's origi nal ·erroneous· convictions act was passed in 1942. Act of Apr. 13, 1942, ch. 442, 1942 N.Y~ Laws 1168. The availability' of relief under the 1942 act 'was enlarged in 1946 by the Act of Feb. 19, 1946, ch. 10 1946 N.Y. Laws 15. In 1984 the New York erroneous convictions act was· conipletely revised· by the Act of Dec. 21, 1984; ch. 1009, 1984 N.Y:· Laws 3648, which js codifi~d in the third section of TitlEf 2 ("Jurisdiction") ·of the -New York Court of Claims Act·(N.Y.· Ct. Cl. Act§ 8-b), and provides: : l. The legislattire finds and· declares that innocent persons who have been wrongly convicted of crimes and subsequently · imprisoned have been frustrated in seeking legal redress due to a variety of substantive and technical obstacles, in the law 809 § '35:44 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND· RELIEF '· 18.Ild:that such persons·.shotild. have an·available avenue.of .··:redress ~over and abov.e the... existing.f tort;rremedies_;to seek 1compensation for .. damJ:tges. 'T:he.-legislatureJntends by enact:. ' .·._ment, of. the .provi~ioQs, of thi$ ~section: tha:t.~·thoae. in.noc~nt persons, who: q~p.. demon~tratel bycl,~ar and co~vi®ing ev.ide11:ce .·.·~that ;they we~~ ~jl,l~tly cop.~ct.ed. and imptjsoned ·be able, .to. re~ .. ·cover damag~s f;):gainst:the state:Jn)ight of the SU:bst~ntial · :burden pf .p~oof tQat m.ust. J>~. c~e~ by s~ch, p~:rs~ms,. ~t is the ·.intent '.of th~Jegi~lature that· the coUrt, in ·exerc~sing· its dis~~ . ~jon~·a~·~P.e~tt~. . • ·" ·. ,_ · . . ·" .i · .. : .>' · PZ:'?q~<;1\u~e la~; of .. · · .. 1 .. . .( c~ ...c;ompar.able proviaions.,of the formet code' of ~rimi ··:. nal.procedure.or subsequent.law; or:c., ·, :.~')· :,.:· ;. :~·· 310 I NEW YORK •! • • I ' : • ! • < ) ~- ' \ ' I : , '_ t · (D)' the statute;· orapplication•;thereof,. on·.which the accusatory instrument was 'basediVi0lated: the· constitu tion. of the .United, States or thestate·of New.York; and (c) his claim is not time-barred by the p·rovisions of · ·, · · :subdivision: seven of this •sectiorn: <~ .;: L, , ! : 1 ·. ·" · ' ··l. · : 1 ' I;; 4'. Tlle cl~m:shall;state fa'c1~s 'iii;~ufficieiit def~ to 'perfuit the court tcdind that: clfilman'.t is': ll.kelf to SUCCeed I at trial in r,: proving that (a): he 'did ;not::coiillnit;. ~Y:.bf the acts charged, in · :the ·accusatory·1iristtwnent: b~ 4filttaets''Qr :omissions charged· in :.. the· ac~usatory ·.iristrum:~p.t· ~d 'hot ::Cbri~titli~~ :a· f~fony or n'lisde : meanor·against'the;state~:and.'(l))°he rua not by1his owh conduct cause or ·bring abotit ms :c prove by clear'alid ·coliVirlcihg·evidence that:'•'/; ), ,I, •' < (a) he has been convicted of one or more felonies or misde :. meaqprs against, ~~ state ~'1 ~sub~equently. ~ep.t~nce~ to a ·· · term of imprisonment,, ~q ha~ -~~rired all or any part of the sentence; and · · · · · · .' .. · · ·:Cb)-_ (i)he·has heeD:pl:ll'dpned .uP.rin the gi-ounci.of'innocence ~- '. . of the crime or crimes·'for· whfoh he' was sentenc~d and ' which are the gtoti.rids"for the: complaint; or .., ' ' ' (ii)_ ;hi~ j'udgment 'or:cori~~tion was rever~ed or va~ated, . and· the acctis~tocy iJ;l.Serument1 msm~ssed or, if a new trial was ordere4',' eit~er' lje was foqrid not gi#lt~ at tire riew trial ·or he was ;riot_·retried. anc;l. the accusatory instrument 'q.ismissed; ·p~ovided that the.· judgtjlent: of conViction was reversed· or va.cated~ arid 'tlie ·aqcusato.ry. instrument was disIµissed, oti· any .of the foll9wing grounds: ·. . . ' ' : ,-:·:I!. (A) para~aph. .<~)~ .Q>), '(~), ~e) toz.: 1(g), ofsubcµyi~ion,:one 1 j of section' 440.10 of the cririiinal ptocedlire l~w; or . ' . . , , •, • ·,' : • : : : ~ f ·~ I - '. _ J ~ , 1 : '. ' ' : : ; 1 ~ ~ ', i < • ', .. : . (B) subµivision op.e (wher~,,based upon groµnds set . forth in ~tem (A). h,ereo.f), two, three (whe~e~ .the count disn,iissed. w.as the ,sol.e b~13is f9r th~.. ~imprisonment complained. of) qr fiv&. 'Of section 4.70.20 '·or the crimiiial - p~o~edure law; o~< ... · · , · · · :; . · .·· .. · .· . · ';' -... ' • • • • a •."'. '.- ' ; .. J.. , I Jo -. ~ .J (C) comparable _provisi(>n~ of the former. .code of cri.mi:- . : .~ar proced1J1i~; or. sµbsf!qu~n~Jaw; or~· . · .. , . > (.0) the statute,,·Qr~ application .thereof, on·which the · ·.accusatory instrument was .based violated; the :constitu . tion,oftbe UnitedfS.tates.o~: tne;state of.,New 1 Yor~;.and.: (c) . he; did not. commit. any. of the. acts charged in the :ae ··• 1: cusatory instrument·or his ;acts .. or .omissions'.charged:in the 311 § 35:44 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES ANP RELIEF . accusatory.: instrument. did,not·.constitute a. felony or misde- . meanor against the state; and . . . . . " (d) he did not by his own·coriduct cause or bring about his conyiction. . 1 : •. :· • : :. • • 6. If the court finds that the claimant is entitled to a judg ment, it shall award damages ;n, such sum of money as the · court 'determines will fairly ~ rea8onably compensate him. . I 7 • Any person claill!i~g \~ompensatiion' unde~ this 'section based on a p,ardon that was ~anted .})efore the. effecti;ve da~e of .. this section Qr tJ;ie dismissal of ~n .accµsatory i11;strument that . occurred before the effective date of this section shall file his claim within two: years. after' the effective date' c;>f this section. Any. person claiming compensatio~ .under this section based. on a pardo~ that was granted on or ~r the effe~tiv~ date of this section ~r. the dis~issal of ~ accusatory instru.D!ent that oc curred on or after the effective date of this section shall file his claim within t\vo' years.. after. the' p_~d!ln or dismiss~!. . § 35:45 Erroneous Convictions Act under New York Court of Claims Act § '8-b-Case law For ca~e law on the New York erroneous convictions act, see, e.g., Baba-AU v. ·state, 19 N.Y.aa· 627, 951 N.Y.S.2d 94, 975 N.K2d 475 (2012) (req'1irements w~re.met for bringing claim against State for unjust conviction and impri~mnment; Appellate Division plainly and reasonably attributed the lµlderlying case's misca¢age t9. prosecution's late introduction of exculpatory re cords, and identified an element of prosecut9rial misconduct go ing· well beyond a simple ~Brady violation-one :consistent with misrepresentation and fraud on the co\lrl); Warney v. State, 16 N.Y.3d 428, 922, ~.Y.S.2_d 8~5., 947 N.E.2d 639 (2011) (§ 8-b imposes. a h~gher pleading standa:r;d than the CPLR; court of claims. must consider whether the' allegations are sufficiently detailed to 'demonstrate a likelihood of succe~s at trial; the al legations· in the claim must be of such character that, if believed, they would Clearly and convincingly establish the elements of the claim,·so as to set forth a· cause of actjon; in evaluating the likeli hood of success at trial, Court of Claiins should avoid making credibility and factual determinations; a 'claimant who meets the evidentiary burdens described in N.Y. Ct.. CL Act§ 8-b(3) and makes detailed allegations with respe·ct to the el~ments described in sectiOn 8-b (4) is entitled to:an opportunity to prove the allega tions at trial);. Turner v. State, 50 A.D.3d 890, 854 N.Y.S.2d 778 (2d Dep't 2008) (preliminary proof requirements under the Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act are not jurisdictional in nature, and therefore imperfect complianc·e can be cured; claimant. who 312 NEW YORK § 35:45 had his conviction .vacated in federal habeas ;proceeding cured his failure to ·meet preliminary proof requirements under the ·Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act, as required to bring. ac~ion against state for unjust conviction aµd ~mprisonment; whe:re .materials he attac}fed. as exhibits. to,"his motion for summary judgment established'. his conviction .of .oil:e or.more felonies,, bis sentence, ~d his incarceratioµ. fqr part of that sentence); Harr:~ v.: State, 38 A.D.3d 144, s2e· N.Y.S.~d 4:63 (2 · impri~orunent under Unjust Conviction1 and Impriso~~i;it Act, clai~ant's failur~ to. submit document deinonstrating ·that fact was yvaivable def~ct;. here, ch;tim.ant's judgment of- conviction was v~cated based ·Qn. ground ~nuµ>.erated ·~n ,Unjust Convic.tion an4 Imprisonment Act, even though. Gou.rt indicated that c.laimant had mov~d .to dismiss in<;lictll.le:Q.t "in interest of justice," w:here court noted· that convi~tion · was vacat~d on .th~. pasis of newly disc9vered evidence, evidence which qould not. h:aye been. produced by the defendant at trial .. even .with d1:1e diligence on his p~rt; claimant was entitled to relief. under. Unjµst: ·Conviction·,,and linPri$onment Act following vacation of his· robbery. conviction, where claimant'~ brother testified that he had comnPtted ·crime, brother was subject to. punis~ent for ~rinle_, brother's te~timoi'.iy was corroborated by his accomplices, claimant. had attempted to establish alibi defense; and Pistrict Attorney's ;_investigator was firmly convinc~d of clfilmant~s innocence); O'Donnell v.. State, 26 A.D~3d 59, eos N.Y.S.~d 266. (2d Dep't 2005) (claimant's conduct of presenting a.Jibi evidence. at. his attempted sodomy and ass,a:ult prosecution. did not cause or bring about his convictic;m, even thoug~. his. alibi evidence was not iron-clad, since his claimed al ibi was. never dispr.ov~d by the prosecution through independent evidence of fabrication, and thus claimap.t ·was entitled to recove:r;y. under the Unjust Conviction and 1Imprisonment Act fol fowing_ :vacation of his .convictions ·due to. results of DNA tes.ting; the :Unjust Conviction. and Imprison.uient Act cannot. be read t9 reqµire a claimant.to :est.ablish by clear and con~cing evidence, that he or she presented no evidence at the criminal trial which the jury may hav~ disbelieved; .an innocent criminal defendant may cause or bring about his or her own conviction by making an uncoerced fa.lse confession of guilt .that is· presented to the jury at trial or by purposefully. concealing· from the prosecution and the jury evidence of the guilt of another person); Baba-AU. v. State; 20 A.D.3d 376, 799 N.Y.S.2d 101 (2d Dep't 2005) (claimant was entitled to recover damages from state for unjust conviction and imprisonment following dismissal of criminal charges against him based on his estranged wife's accusations of raping and sexu- 313 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELI~F ally·· abusing -his then: four-year~old :daughter, even though reversal of claimant's-conviction was based in part on·ineffective . assistance of counsel,.where .there was clear· andrconvincing evi!. dence of.claimant's innoce'nce, and,reversal was also based on government's deliberate ·Withholding ofeyideµce· that tended· to ~xonerate claimant until ·eve of trial); Long ·v. State, 19 AD.3d 554~ '7-97 N.Y.S~2d ;124 (2d Dep't 2005), ·aft'd, 7··N.Y,.3d 269; 819 N.Y:~t2d' 679; 852 N.E.2d· 1150'.(2006) _(requiremenis imposed by Court' of Clirlnis· Act :§··:8~b are to 11e strictly· construed; in order 'to bring· a claim under Court of Claims Act·§ 8-b, a· claimant must establislr,r ·inter alia, that the claiill is not tllne-barred· by the pro visions of Cotirt. of" Claims Act § 8-b(3)(c); which provide .that· any person i cl~iming compensation ·under tliis· section 'based on ·the dismissal' of..:an accusatofy irlstrume~t that occnrred on or: after the;. effective· date1 of this section. shall file his claim, withiri two y~ars· after "the pardon. or dismissal;: ·since the indictmeht in this case was ·dismissed only upo·n an interests of Justice basis and rtot ·pursuant tcfN.Y. Crim. Proc~ -Law §-440.10',thEfclaimarlt failed-:to make out a Viable '.Qourt··ofdlaims Act § 8-b claim); Webb v. --Sta·tei, 18 ·A,D.3d. 648, 795 ·N .Y.S.2d 636 "(2d Dep't 2005) (Court ofClaimS-Act § 8-b authorizes a claim· for damages against the ·s~ate by aily person imprisoned· for one or more felonies 'or misdemearlors whfoh he or she' did not-commit; this authorization of a Claim for u.D.lawful conViction and imprisonment is further limited,_inter·alia, I \ ' : .~ ~•I ' : ' 'r ' : _j . . -~ . l I ~ • • ) .• .•.1 31'4