- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- People v. Perez-Olivo
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03460
Background
Appellant Carlos Perez-Olivo, currently incarcerated at Napanoch, applied pro se for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate a 2015 decision and order of the Appellate Division, Second Department (People v. Perez-Olivo, 127 AD3d 1110), which had affirmed his 2008 judgment of conviction from County Court, Westchester County. The application was based on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, alleging that his assigned counsel on the direct appeal failed to raise meritorious issues that would have resulted in a different outcome.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, denied the application. The Court held that the appellant failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel, citing the federal standard from Jones v. Barnes, 463 US 745, and the New York standard from People v. Stultz, 2 NY3d 277. Under these standards, appellate counsel is not required to raise every non-frivolous issue and has broad discretion in selecting which arguments to advance. The appellant failed to demonstrate that appellate counsel’s choices fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that the omission of any particular argument created a reasonable probability of a different outcome on appeal.
Takeaways
Coram nobis applications based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel face a high hurdle. The applicant must show not merely that appellate counsel failed to raise a particular issue, but that no reasonable appellate attorney would have made the same strategic choices. Appellate counsel retains wide latitude to select which issues to brief and argue, and the failure to raise a particular claim does not, standing alone, demonstrate ineffectiveness. This standard reflects the principle that appellate advocacy is most effective when focused on the strongest arguments rather than diluted by raising every possible claim.
Why It Matters
For incarcerated individuals and their advocates, this decision reaffirms the limited scope of coram nobis review in New York. The writ is an extraordinary remedy available only when appellate counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient, meaning it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness as measured by prevailing professional norms. Pro se applicants in particular should understand that identifying an unraised argument is not sufficient—they must demonstrate both that the argument was objectively meritorious and that its omission could not be attributed to reasonable strategic judgment by experienced appellate counsel.