People v. Alvarez
101 N.Y.S.3d 702, 33 N.Y.3d 286, 125 N.E.3d 117 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the New York Constitution, appellate counsel provides meaningful representation, and is not ineffective, even if a submitted brief is terse and poorly drafted, so long as it raises reviewable, non-frivolous issues that permit plenary appellate review. Counsel may also make a reasonable strategic decision to forgo an argument with a low probability of success, such as a challenge to a sentence as unduly harsh where the underlying crimes were heinous and the defendant showed no remorse.
Facts:
- Omar Alvarez was a member of a narcotics trafficking organization, serving as a 'manager' who enforced discipline and supervised street dealers.
- Alvarez sold large quantities of crack cocaine to undercover police officers on multiple occasions.
- As part of the organization's activities, Alvarez and his codefendants participated in a drive-by shooting, firing approximately thirty bullets into a group of teenagers.
- The shooting killed a 14-year-old and caused another victim to suffer permanent disabilities.
- At his sentencing hearing, Alvarez denied responsibility for the shooting, expressly refused to apologize to the deceased victim's family, and laughed while the court explained its sentencing determination.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1996, a jury in the trial court convicted Omar Alvarez of numerous felonies, including murder in the second degree and conspiracy in the first degree.
- The trial court imposed consecutive sentences resulting in an aggregate prison term of 66 2/3 years to life.
- Alvarez, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division, First Department (an intermediate appellate court).
- His appellate counsel raised four arguments: illegal search, erroneous denial of an adjournment, illegal sealing of a witness list, and that the conspiracy verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- In 2000, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction, rejecting all of appellate counsel's arguments.
- In 2017, Alvarez filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis with the Appellate Division, arguing that his appellate counsel on the direct appeal had been ineffective.
- The Appellate Division denied Alvarez's coram nobis application.
- A Judge of the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court) granted Alvarez leave to appeal the denial of his coram nobis petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an appellate counsel's representation constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution where counsel submitted a terse and poorly drafted brief, allegedly failed to communicate with the client, and strategically chose not to challenge a lengthy sentence as unduly harsh and severe?
Opinions:
Majority - Stein, J.
No. The appellate counsel's performance provided meaningful representation and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Under New York's 'meaningful representation' standard, which is more protective than the federal Strickland test, appellate counsel is judged on whether their performance reflects a competent grasp of the facts, law, and procedure. While the brief filed on Alvarez's behalf was terse and not a model of advocacy, it raised four reviewable issues that the Appellate Division addressed on the merits, demonstrating a competent grasp of the case. Furthermore, counsel has wide latitude in selecting which arguments to advance, and the decision to forgo an excessive sentence argument was a reasonable strategic choice given the heinous nature of the crimes and Alvarez's lack of remorse, which gave the argument little chance of success. Alvarez also failed to provide sufficient proof to support his claim of inadequate communication.
Dissenting - Rivera, J.
Yes. The appellate counsel's performance fell below the constitutional standard of meaningful representation. Counsel abdicated his professional obligations by failing to perfect the appeal in a timely manner, failing to communicate with his client for over three years, and submitting a 'pathetic mockery of competent advocacy.' The brief was substantively deficient, riddled with errors, lacked citations to the record, confused fundamental legal standards like weight of the evidence versus legal sufficiency, and failed to champion the defendant's cause. The majority wrongly imports a prejudice standard by focusing on the likely outcome of the unraised arguments; the New York standard is concerned with the fairness of the process, which was clearly compromised by counsel's substandard performance. Merely listing issues is not advocacy; this performance was an abdication of counsel's duty.
Dissenting - Wilson, J.
Yes. The appellate counsel's failure to ask the Appellate Division to reduce the sentence in the interest of justice was, standing alone, ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division possesses a unique and unreviewable power to reduce sentences, and there was no sound strategic reason to refrain from making such a request for a 19-year-old defendant receiving a de facto life sentence, especially when the other arguments on appeal were weak. The principle of 'nothing ventured, nothing gained' applies. Modern jurisprudence and science recognize the diminished culpability and greater capacity for reform of young offenders, making a plea for mercy not only viable but essential. By failing to make the one argument that could have provided meaningful relief, counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for proving ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under New York's 'meaningful representation' standard. The court signals that even objectively poor-quality legal work will not be deemed constitutionally ineffective as long as it presents some reviewable, non-frivolous claims for the appellate court to consider. The ruling solidifies the broad strategic deference granted to appellate attorneys in selecting which arguments to pursue, suggesting that forgoing a weak claim in favor of others is a protected choice, even if those other claims also fail. This case will likely make it more difficult for future defendants to obtain relief via coram nobis petitions based on the quality of their appellate briefs, unless the deficiencies are so complete that they amount to no representation at all.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Alvarez